Roberts v. Quantum3 Group LLC et al

Filing 4

ORDER adopting the portion of the Bankruptcy Judge's Report and Recommendation finding permissive withdrawal appropriate as its opinion and granting the withdrawal of the reference. The case is hereby withdrawn from the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Georgia, and the Clerk is directed to assign this case as a civil action. Each party shall have seven days to file a response, if they wish, to the imposition of a stay. Failure to file a response within seven days shall indicate there is no opposition to the Court's proposed course of action. Compliance due by 6/15/2015. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 06/08/2015. (thb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION

TERRI L.

ROBERTS,

*
*

Plaintiff,

*
*

v.

*

CV 115-072

*

QUANTUM3 GROUP,

LLC,

*
*

Defendant.

*

ORDER

After a

careful,

de novo review,

the Court concurs with the

Bankruptcy Judge's Report and Recommendation
that

the

Court

withdraw

the

reference

(doc.

"for

cause"

permissive withdrawal provisions of 28 U.S.C.
no

objections

were

portion

of

the

finding

permissive

filed.

Bankruptcy

Accordingly,

Judge's

withdrawal

Report

Court

and
as

GRANTS the withdrawal of the reference.1

under

§ 157(d),

the

appropriate

3-1 at 76-84)
the

to which

ADOPTS

the

Recommendation

its

opinion

and

The case is hereby

WITHDRAWN from the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of

Georgia,

and

the

Clerk

is

DIRECTED

to

assign

this

case

as

a

civil action.

The Court has

stayed four cases

on its

docket pending the

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals'

decision in Johnson v. Midland

1

as

The

withdrawal.

Court

expresses

no

opinion

to

the

merits

of

mandatory

Funding,
those

LLC,

cases

Collection

No.

15-11240

turns

on

Practices

(11th Cir. Mar.

the

Act

interplay

("FDCPA")

24,

2015) .2

between

and

the

the

Each of

Fair

Bankruptcy

Debt

Code,

particularly in reference to the filing of time-barred proofs of
claim in bankruptcy proceedings.

Circuit

The issue before the Eleventh

in Johnson is essentially the same: Does

Code preclude an FDCPA claim based on the
claim?

Indeed,

parties'
Circuit

Doc.

from

filings,

the

Court's

at

complaint,

7

(asserting,

that

filing of

preliminary

a proof of

review

of

the

it appears that an affirmance from the Eleventh

in Johnson would prove

3-1

the Bankruptcy

dispositive

in

Plaintiff's

moving

"motion

to

here

as

dismiss

lays

the

before

issue expressly left undecided by Crawford,"

well.

(See

adversary

the

Court

the

which is now under

consideration in Johnson).

It

is

proceedings

well-established

either on its

See,

e.g.,

24 8,

254

"[a]

variety of

pending

Landis v.

(193 6) .

the

N.

that

a

own or

on

Am.

Moreover,

district

a motion of

Water Works

&

the
Co.,

stay

parties.
299 U.S.

circumstances may justify a district court stay

resolution

(11th Cir.

Elec.

may

the Eleventh Circuit has held that

of

a

related

case

Ortega Trujillo v. Conover & Co. Commc'ns,
1264

court

2000).

Indeed,

in
Inc.,

another

court."

221 F.3d 1262,

a stay "sometimes is authorized

simply as a means of controlling the district court's docket and
2
v.

Ford v. Quantum3 Group, LLC et al., No. l:15-cv-031, Doc. 7; McNorrill
Asset Acceptance, LLC, No. l:14-cv-210, Doc. 29; Willis v. Cavalry

Investments, LLC et al., No.
Capital Servs. et al., No.

l:14-cv-227, Doc.

l:14-cv-098, Doc.
2

51.

34; Aliff et al. v. Resurgent

of

managing

cases

before

the

district

court."

Id.

Even

so,

"[w]hen a district court exercises its discretion to stay a case
pending the resolution of related proceedings in another forum,
the district

court must

limit properly the

scope

of the stay."

Id.

The

Court

recognizes

that

the

parties

in

this

matter

have

not been afforded an opportunity to respond to the propriety of a
stay.

For that reason,

a response,

each party shall have SEVEN DAYS to file

if they wish,

to the

imposition of

a stay.

Failure

to file a response within seven days shall indicate there is no
opposition to the Court's proposed course of action.

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta,

Georgia,

this

Cr~

day of June,

2015.

HONQR^BPE J. 'RANDAL HALL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA