In Re:Speer

Filing 6

ORDER: The motion to withdraw the reference, ECF No. 1 , is denied. The Clerk may enter judgment and close the case. See attached Ruling and Order for details. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 1/31/2018. (Chenoweth, T.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

IN RE: SHERI SPEER

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-1268-RNC

RULING AND ORDER
On July 28, 2017, Sheri Speer, a debtor in bankruptcy, filed
a “notice of removal” seeking to remove the bankruptcy case and
an adversary proceeding to this Court.

It is apparent that Ms.

Speer meant to file a motion to withdraw the reference to the
Bankruptcy Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), which she cited
in the notice, and the notice will be treated accordingly.
Section 157(d) provides:
The district court may withdraw, in whole or in part,
any case or proceeding referred under this section, on
its own motion or on timely motion of any party, for
cause shown. The district court shall, on timely
motion of a party, so withdraw a proceeding if the
court determines that resolution of the proceeding
requires consideration of both title 11 and other laws
of the United States regulating organizations or
activities affecting interstate commerce.
28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

The first sentence of section 157(d)

provides for “permissive” withdrawal; the second provides for
“mandatory” withdrawal.

See Sec. Inv’r Prot. Corp. v. Bernard L.

Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC, 454 B.R. 307, 311 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).
Ms. Speer’s notice recites the objectives that can be served
by permissive withdrawal: uniformity of bankruptcy
1

administration, minimizing forum shopping, efficient use of
resources and expediting the bankruptcy process.

However, she

does not explain how any of these objectives would be served if
her motion were granted and I think withdrawal of the reference
would tend to undermine each one.
The mandatory withdrawal provision applies only when the
case requires the bankruptcy judge to make a “significant
interpretation, as opposed to simple application, of federal laws
apart from the bankruptcy statutes.”

City of New York v. Exxon

Corp., 932 F.2d 1020, 1026 (2d Cir. 1991).

Ms. Speer does not

attempt to show that the standard for mandatory withdrawal is
satisfied and I have no reason to think that it is.
Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is denied.

The Clerk

may enter judgment and close the case.
So ordered this 31st day of January 2018.

/s/ RNC
Robert N. Chatigny
United States District Judge

2