Myers v. Malone et al

Filing 14

ORDER that the Court thus concludes that the bankruptcy court was procedurally correct to provide the Court with findings and recommendations for de novo review. Absent any objection, therefore, the Court will review the bankruptcy court's findings and recommendations and rule on the defendant's OBJECTION 9 . Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (ADB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
RICHARD D. MYERS, Chapter 7
Trustee of the Daniel M. Malone
bankruptcy estate,

8:13-CV-353

Plaintiff,
ORDER
vs.
JEANNE MALONE,
Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on its own motion, noting the Supreme
Court's decision in Exec. Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison, 2014 WL 2560461
(U.S. June 9, 2014). The holding of that case, as the Court understands it, is
that a "core" proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) that cannot be finally
adjudicated by the bankruptcy court pursuant to Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct.
2594 (2011), may proceed as non-core within the meaning of § 157(c), and the
bankruptcy court may hear the proceeding and submit findings of fact and
conclusions of law to the district court for de novo review. Arkison, 2014 WL
2560461, at *7. The Court thus concludes that the bankruptcy court was
procedurally correct to provide the Court with findings and recommendations
for de novo review. Absent any objection, therefore, the Court will review the
bankruptcy court's findings and recommendations and rule on the
defendant's objection (filing 9).1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 10th day of June, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

John M. Gerrard
United States District Judge
To be clear, the Court is not, at this time, rejecting the defendant's request to adduce
additional evidence. See filing 10 at 3, 20. Rather, the Court will determine whether an
additional hearing is appropriate when performing its de novo review.
1