Mukamal v. Kodsi et al

Filing 7

ORDER denying motion to withdraw reference. Administrative Order Closing Case. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles (hs01) NOTICE: If there are sealed documents in this case, they may be unsealed after 1 year or as directed by Court Order, unless they have been designated to be permanently sealed. See Local Rule 5.4 and Administrative Order 2014-69.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 15-20770-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
In re:
ISAAC KODSI,
Debtor.
_____________________________/
BARRY MUKAMAL, as Trustee,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ARK CAPITAL GROUP, LLC,
AMY KODSI, and NANCY KODSI,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendants Amy Kodsi and Nancy Kodsi’s
Motion to Withdraw the Reference [D.E. 1]. The Court has reviewed the Motion and the record,
and is otherwise fully advised.
On October 15, 2014, Barry Mukamal, as Trustee (“TRUSTEE”), initiated an adversary
proceeding against Ark Capital Group, LLC (“Ark”), Amy Kodsi, and Nancy Kodsi
(collectively “Defendants”) in the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Proceeding, In re: Isaac Kodsi, No. 1340134-LMI. Amy Kodsi and Nancy Kodsi (the “Kodsis”) move to withdraw the reference of the
adversary proceeding. Ark also moved to withdraw the reference in a separate action. See In re
Isaac Kodsi, No. 15-20772-CMA [ECF No. 1](S.D. Fla.). United States District Judge Cecilia
M. Altonaga denied Ark’s request. See Id. at ECF No. 6.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), “[t]he 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 burden is on the movant to “demonstrate that sufficient cause
exists for withdrawal.” In re Wi-Sky Inflight, Inc., 483 B.R. 788, 792 (N.D.Ga. 2012)(internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). In making its determination, the Court considers “such
goals as advancing uniformity in bankruptcy administration, decreasing forum shopping and
confusion, promoting the economical use of parties’ resources, and facilitating the bankruptcy
process.” In re Parklane/Atlanta Joint Venture, 927 F.2d 532, 536 n. 5 (11th Cir. 1991)(citations
omitted). The Court also considers whether the claim is core or non-core, the efficient use of
judicial resources, the existence of a jury demand, and preventing delay. See In re Hvide
Marine, Inc., 248 B.R. 841, 844 (M.D. Fla. 2000)(citation omitted).
The Court finds that the Kodsis failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for withdrawal.
Although the Kodsis allege that the claims are non-core, they fail to support their allegations.
Indeed, the Kodsis admitted the proceedings were “core” in their answers to the Bankruptcy
Complaint. See In re: Isaac Kodsi, No. 13-40134-LMI [ECF No 10, ECF No. 11]. In addition,
the Court does not find that withdrawal promotes an economical use of the parties’ resources or
facilitates the bankruptcy process, particularly since Judge Altonaga denied Ark’s request for
withdrawal.

2

Based thereon, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion to Withdraw the Reference is DENIED.
It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is CLOSED for administrative purposes
and all pending motions are DENIED as moot.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 11th day of March, 2015.

________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc:

Magistrate Judge Turnoff
All Counsel of Record

3