Farmer v. Macy's, Inc. et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 8/13/2017. (tds, Deputy Clerk)

c;

II

FILED

IN TilE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUlt~s'i "C"j"
FOR HIE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
"
SOl/them

MONICA GRAHAM FARMER,

Dil'i.\"iol/

c~".

CI~""I '1, ..•.
1
r!::J,~,.J. ;;'.J,:~.
~" ,f" r L",.J

1011 AUG I ~ A g: 34

*
J' \I

Plaintiff,

"

*

v.

--

--

Case No.: G.JH-I 7-lIS67

*
MACY'S INC., et al.,

Adversary
Proceeding:
LSS-16-lIJSlI

*
Defendants.

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff rvlonica Graham
against Defendants
Bankruptcy

13 bankruptcy

Complaint.

age. disability.

Retail I loldings.

Motion to Withdraw

see Farmer \'. Macy's Inc.. AI' No. LSS-16-0350.

various claims of employment

the Reference

Macy's.

discrimination

to the Bankruptcy

in this matter. Upon consideration

In the
based on

Doc. I. [ Now pending beil)J'e this

to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

and relevant authorities.

Proceeding

Inc. in the United Slates

case. see In re Farmer. ilK No. LSS-14-15219.

PlaintilTalleges

not entered an appearance
Reference

liled this casc as an Advcrsary

and race against her fonner employer.

Court is Plaintiffs
Proceedings

Inc. and Macy's

Court for the District of Maryland.

within her Chapter
Adversary

Macy's

Fanncr originally

Court and Transfer

ECF No. I. Defendants

of the Motion to Withdraw

the Motion shall be granted. and the action transferred

U.S. District Court Illr the District of Maryland

have

the
to the

as a civil action.

Ducket entries in the Adversary Proceeding. Farmer \'. 1\!llL:'""S Inc.. All No. 16-0350. arc denoted herein as "Doc:'
Following a hearing before the Bankruptcy Judge 011 January I 1.2017. during which the Bankruptcy Judge
indicated her belief that jurisdiction over the Adversary Proceeding was lacking. PlaintilTwas prompted to file a
Motion to Withdnl\v the Reference. See Doc. 10.

I

I.

DISCUSSION
In ceneral. the District Court has "oricinal
~
~.

title II:'

and exclusivc

Code. /11 r" TMST. /Ilc .• No. 09-17787

the Bankruptcy

(D. Md. July 6. 2015) (citing 28 U.S.C

~ 1334(a».

jurisdiction

of all cases under

NY A. 2015 WI. 4080077.

The District Court may. however.

at *3

refer "any

or all cases undcr title II and any or all proceedings

arising undcr titlc II or arising in or related

to a case under title II ...

I(lr the district."

to the bankruptcy

judgcs

Id (citing 28 U.S.C

*

I 57(a)): .1''''' a/so I.oc. R. 402 (D. Md. July J. 2(16)2

By the same tokcn. the District Court can

withdraw

Court. 28 U.S.C

the relcrence

of the case to the Bankruptcy

*

157(d) provides:

The district court may withdraw. in whole or in part. any case or
proceeding relcrred under this section. on its own motion or on
timely motion of any party. /(lr 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 II and other laws of the United States
regulating
organizations
or
activities
affecting
interstate
commerce.
28 U.S.C

*

~ 157 (d). If the proceeding

157(d). "it triggers mandatory

removed

in the bankruptcy

withdrawal

court comes under the second clause of

and. upon timcly motion. the proceeding

must be

to the district court." i\foorill~ Capila! FIIIlt!. U.C)". SlIlIil"llll. NO.3: 16-CY-74. 2016

WI. 4628572.

at *4 (N.D. W. Va. Sept. 6. 2016). If the proceeding

"it triggers permissive

withdrawal

comes under the !irst clause.

and the district court will conduct a review of six ItlCtorS to

218 U.S.C. ~ 157{b){ I) authorizes bankruptcy courts to "hear and determine all cases under title II and all core
proceedings arising under title I I. or arising in a case under title I I:' subject to appellate review by the district
courts. 28 U.S.c. ~ 157(b)( I) (emphasis added). In a "non-core" proceeding. bul that is otherwise related to a case
under Title II. the bankruptcy court can only submit proposed findings of Hiet and conclusions or law to the district
eOUI1. 28 U.S.c. ~ 157(c)( I). Following the Supreme Coun"s decision in Slem ". ,\/ar.\'hall. 564 U.S. 462 (2011).
and Ert!ClIlh'c! Ben(fir.<j Insurance .{~L'I1(:" \', Arki.wn. 13--lS. Ct. 1165 (2014). it was further held that evell for some
"corc" proceedings. bankruptcy courts do not have constitutional authority to enter linal judgments. despite their
statutory 3utl1ority to adjudicate those matters under ~ 157(b) . .)fle In I'e TJIST, Inc.. No. 09-17787 NV 1\.2015 WI.
4080077. at *4 (D. Md. July 6.1(15) (discussing .,"ern and Arkison).

determine whether it should exercise its discretion to withdraw the reference to the bankruptcy
court:' Id
With respect to mandatory withdrawal. ..[tlhe great weight of the case law interpreting ~
157(d) holds that this seemingly broad language ... should be narrowly read:' 1111'<'
M<'rJ)'\I'<'Oliler

IlIIpol'lers.

Il1c.•

179 B.R. 61. 62 (D. Md. 1995) (compiling cases). Indeed.

"mandatory withdrawal should only be made where substantial and material consideration of
non-bankruptcy statutcs is ncccssary in the case:' Id Theref(lI'e. whereas cases invol\'ing
"federal questions that arc complex or arc of first impression must be withdrawn fi'om
reference:' cases that merely involve "straightf()[\vard application of fedcral statutcs to a
particular set of facts" would not come under the ambit of mandatory withdrawal. Id Although
Plaintitrs

Complaint alleges e1aims under various federal employment discrimination statutes.

the Court docs not find mandatory withdrawal to be required. Nonetheless. because the Court
agrees that permissive withdrawal is appropriate. it need not definitely resolve whether
mandatory withdrawal applies in this case.
Regarding permissive withdrawal. the District Court "has broad discretion in deciding
whether reference should be withdrawn for cause shown:' 1111'<'
Mi//<'l1l1iulII Sludios. Il1c.. 286
B.R. 300. 303 (D. Md. 2002). In determining whether cause exists for withdrawal. the Court
considers ..the following factors: (I) whether the maller at issue between the parties is 'core'
within the meaning of Section 157(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code; (2) unif(JrI11ityof bankruptcy
administration: (3) f()rum shopping: (4) conservation of creditor and debtor resources: (5)
expediency of the bankruptcy proceeding; (6) the likelihood ofajury
Il1c..

506 B.R. 453.455 (D. Md. 2014): .1'<'<'
a/so 1111'<'
M<'rJ)'lI'wlilel'

trial:' Alherl \', Sil<' ,1/gI111
..
1IIII)()I'Iers. Il1c..

179 B.R.

61. 63 (D. Md. 1995) (noting that with respect to the sixth factor ... the f~lctthat only equitable

,
.,

issues arc posed. not requiring a jury trial. falling within the traditional
bankruptcy

judge as chancellor"

"It is the mO\'ant's
bankruptcy

burden to show eause for the permissive

In response to the Court's

Age Discrimination
"core" bankruptcy
proceedings

debtor-creditor
CO.

I'.

the Relerence.

Court is appropriate.

discrimination
in Employment
proceeding

PlaintilTsubmitted

Such proceedings

existence

her brief

Act ("ADA").

157(b )(2) of the Bankruptcy

Code.

function of restructuring

aspects of a bankruptcy

delined as a controversy

a

case."' Edgcomh

Mewls
marks

that 'would have no practical

A/herl, 506 B.R. at 456 (citing Grau.c \'. Ellg/l/Illler. 321 F.3d

467, 4 71 (4th Cir. 2003)) (emphasis

in original).

are plainly not integral to bankruptcy

Plainti 1'1' employment
s

discrimination

claims

functions and thercfi.lrc are not core. C( Illre ,lIi//ellllium

IlIc.. 286 B.R. 300, 306 (D. Md. 20(2) (withdrawing

relercncc

of Plaintilrs

that despitc "thc c10sc and significant

Plaintilrs

claims and its bankruptcy

Plaintiff's

claims are bascd, this adversary
law to be appropriatcly

asserting

(D. Md. 1(88) (internal citations and quotations

are "generally

contract and tort claims: reasoning

the

Act ("ADEA "). and 42 U .S.c. ~ 1981. does not constitute

all necessary

hutjiJr the bankruptcy."'

Proceeding,

with Disabilities

arc those matters integral to the core bankruptcy

omitted).

bankruptcy

to

Studios. 286 B.R. at 303).

First. the Adversary

within the meaning of Section

rights, including

court).

ECF NO.5. The Court Iinds that. applying

claims under the Amcricans

ElIslmet COIl}.. 89 B.R. 546,548

Studios.

ofrelerence

factors set f(lrth in A/herl and Illre Mel"/:l'\l'el/ther, withdrawing

to the Bankruptcy

solely employment

"[Clore

withdrawal

Letter Order dated July 12.2017,

in support of the Motion to Withdraw

reference

powers of a

would counsel in f~lvor of keeping the case in bankruptcy

court." A/hert, 506 B.R. at 455 (citing Mi//ellllium

the above-mentioned

equitable

case ...

with rcgard to thc substantivc

procecding

rclationship

bctwcen

law on which

is not relatcd enough to the lield of

subject to the jurisdiction

4

state

of and Iinal determination

by a

bankruptcy

In re CO/ll/lleree. U.C. No. AP 15-69-JFS. 2015 WL 4055477. at *2 (D.

court."):

Md. July 1.20 15) (withdrawing

refercnce

..[tJhis action is clcarly not a 'core'
Application
The uniformity
expedient

ofthc

unjust enrichmcnt

factors also counsel in fllvor of withdrawing

administration

will not be negatively

to try the ease in District Court. as the Adversary

not typically

handled by the Bankruptcy

2006 WL 3899997,

at *2 (S,D.W.

that "[wlithdrawing

the referencc

bankruptcy

Proceeding

ccrtainly

(granting

will not aflectthc

Complaint

and it is more

involves subject matter

that PlaintitTtile

motion to withdraw

and noting

unif(mn administration

raises issues govemed

The Court further finds that the risk of forum shopping

of the Complaint.

impacted.

the refcrence.

Court. See til/en \'. Nal'/ Cil)' '\/orlg. No. 2:04 MC I XX,

Va, July 13.2006)

law because the Amended

Court itself recommended

claims and noting

procccding:").

remaining

of bankruptcy

of Plaintiffs

by non-Title

of
II law:').

by the Plaintiff is low. as the Bankruptcy

a motion to withdraw

the reference

or face dismissal

See Doc, 20,

Finally. Fed. R, Civ, P. 38 provides that where the right to jury trial is provided
Constitution
demanded

or statute. a party may demand ajury
must be by jury unless ...

trial. Once demanded ... trial on all issues so

the court. on motion or its own. finds that on some or all of

those issues there is no federal right to ajury

trial:'

Complaint.

damages and ajury

Additionally.

Plaintiff has requested

by the

monetary

Fed. R. Civ. 1'. 39(a). In the Adversary

and for that reason. creditor and debtor resources

trial. See Doe. I at 34.
would likely be conserved

transferring

the action to the District Court sooner rather than later. Accordingly,

withdrawal

is proper.

5

by

permissive

II.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above. Plaintiff-s Motion to Withdraw the Reference. ECI' No. I.

is granted. The Court will address Defendants' default in forthcoming proceedings. A separate
Order shall issue.

Dated: August

/3

.2017
GEORGE .I. HAZEL
United States District Judge

6