Banton v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC

Filing 2

ORDER that 1 Motion to Withdraw Reference is DENIED. Case terminated. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 10/2/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

MARY BANTON,

Case No. 2:17-CV-141 JCM (PAL)

8

Plaintiff(s),

9
10

ORDER

v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13
14

Presently before the court is plaintiff Mary Banton’s motion to withdraw reference. (ECF
No. 1).

15

Plaintiff is currently undergoing Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings. (ECF Nos 1, 1-1).

16

While in bankruptcy, plaintiff filed a complaint against Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, alleging causes

17

of action arising out of a mortgage refinancing. Id. Plaintiff asserts claims for unjust enrichment,

18

breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of 12 C.F.R. §

19

1024.35, 1024.36 and 1024.36(c). Id.

20

The Bankruptcy Code does not define what constitutes cause under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

21

However, courts have looked at a number of factors, including, “(1) efficient use of judicial

22

resources; (2) delay and costs to parties; (3) uniformity of bankruptcy administration; (4)

23

prevention of forum shopping; and other related factors.” In re Access Ins. Servs., Inc. No. 3:13-

24

cv-00699-MMD, 2014 WL 6065641, at *1 (D. Nev. Nov 12, 2014) (citing Sec. Farms v. Int’l Bhd.

25

of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, 124 F.3d 999, 1008 (9th Cir.1999)).

26

Here, the action should remain a part of the bankruptcy proceeding. The proceeding relates

27

to debtor’s bankruptcy, and the factors listed above counsel in favor of maintaining the action in

28

the bankruptcy court. And while plaintiff notes that the action is a non-core proceeding, (ECF No.

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

1), “[a] bankruptcy judge may hear a proceeding that is not a core proceeding but that is otherwise

2

related to a case under title 11.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). Plaintiff’s motion does not present

3

adequate grounds for this court to withdraw the action pursuant to § 157(d).

4

Accordingly,

5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff’s motion (ECF

6
7
8
9

No. 1) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
DATED October 2, 2017.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-