Desmond v. Wallin

Filing 4

Chief Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER.Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), defendant's motion (Dkt. No. 1 ) is DENIED without prejudice to its renewal.So Ordered.(de Oliveira, Flaviana)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
_______________________________________

)
JOHN O. DESMOND,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
LINDSAY KING WALLIN,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________________)

Civil Action No.
24-10411-FDS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW REFERENCE
SAYLOR, C.J.
On February 1, 2024, defendant moved to withdraw the reference of her adversary
proceeding from the bankruptcy court because she has demanded a jury trial as to all the claims
against her and her own counterclaims. So far, there have been no proceedings in the bankruptcy
court concerning either set of claims.
Withdrawal of reference from the bankruptcy court is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 157(d),
which states that the district court may withdraw a case referred to the bankruptcy court “for
cause shown.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). “Cause to withdraw a reference exists where a party has a
right to a trial by jury and does not consent to having that trial in the bankruptcy court.” In re
Wolverine, Proctor & Schwartz, LLC, 404 B.R. 1, 2 (D. Mass. 2009). However, under Local
Rule 206, even when a claim might eventually require a trial by jury, “the bankruptcy court may
preside over all pretrial proceedings and submit proposed findings on dispositive motions,”
subject to de novo review by the district court. Agin v. Sam Hill, LLC, 2014 WL 6773727, at *3
(D. Mass. Dec. 2, 2014).

The Court is not persuaded that there is a risk of inconsistent results or that withdrawal
will promote judicial economy or conserve the parties’ resources. In light of the close
relationship between this adversary proceeding and the issues before the bankruptcy court, as
well as the bankruptcy court’s familiarity with the parties and defendant’s proof of claim, that
court is best placed to consider defendant’s claims. Although the Court may be required to
conduct a de novo review of the bankruptcy court’s eventual findings at some point, that is not
sufficient good cause to withdraw the proceeding at this time. See Weiss v. Lockwood, 499 B.R.
392, 394-95 (D. Mass. 2013); Agin, 2014 WL 6773727, at *3.
Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), defendant’s motion is DENIED without
prejudice to its renewal.
So Ordered.

Dated: April 9, 2024

/s/ F. Dennis Saylor IV
F. Dennis Saylor IV
Chief Judge, United States District Court

2