Ries v. Lindsay

Filing 3

ORDER FOR REMAND(Written Opinion). Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 8/15/2012. (PJM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 12-1633(DSD)
Charles W. Ries,
Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.
Daniel Lindsay,
Defendant.

This adversary proceeding was initiated in bankruptcy court by
a bankruptcy trustee asserting a fraudulent-transfer claim under 11
U.S.C. § 548.

ECF No. 1-1.

Defendant demands a jury trial and

does not consent to trial of the matter by the bankruptcy court.
Thus, the bankruptcy court ordered that the adversary proceeding be
transferred

to

the

district

5011-3(a).1

court

pursuant

to

Local

Rule

ECF No. 1-17.

The transfer to the district court is premature at this early
stage in the adversary proceeding.
economy

are

best

served

by

The interests of judicial

returning

the

proceeding

to

the

bankruptcy court to use that court’s expertise until the proceeding

1

Local Rule 5011-3(a) states in relevant part:
On the [bankruptcy] judge’s own initiative or
on motion of a party in interest, the
bankruptcy judge shall transfer to the
district court: 1) any proceeding in which the
court has determined that there is a right to
trial by jury of the issues for which a jury
has been timely demanded, and the parties have
not
consented
to
the
bankruptcy
judge
conducting the jury trial.

is trial ready.

See In re Healthcentral.com, 504 F.3d 775, 787-88

(9th Cir. 2007) (finding defendant’s Seventh Amendment right to
jury trial in district court does not require immediate transfer of
the proceeding to the district court, and bankruptcy court’s
retention of proceeding until it is trial ready promotes judicial
economy by using bankruptcy court’s specialized knowledge of Title
11 actions); In re Enron Corp., 318 B.R. 273, 275-76 (S.D.N.Y.
2004)

(denying

withdrawal

at

the

“early

stage”

of

adversary

proceeding because bankruptcy court’s retention of the proceeding
“until the case is trial-ready would further the interests of
judicial economy”); In re Petters Co., 440 B.R. 805, 810 (Bankr. D.
Minn. 2010) (stating bankruptcy court’s retention of proceeding for
pre-trial matters “make[s] best use of the specialized expertise of
the bankruptcy judiciary”).
Accordingly, the case is remanded to the bankruptcy court
until the proceeding is trial ready.
Dated:

August 15, 2012
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court

2