LISCINSKI v. MARASEK et al
Filing
2
LETTER OPINION. Signed by Judge Joel A. Pisano on 5/13/2014. (mmh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CHAMBERS OF
Clarkson S. Fisher Building & U.S. Courthouse
402 East State Street
Trenton, NJ 08608
(609) 989-0502
JOEL A. PISANO
JUDGE
May 13, 2014
LETTER OPINION
Re: Theodore J. Liscinski, Jr. v. Jan and Joan Byron Marasek
Civil Action No. 14-cv-2516 (JAP)
Dear parties:
Presently before the Court is Defendants, Jan and Joan Byron Marasek’s (collectively
referred to as “Defendants”) Motion to Withdraw the Reference [docket #1]. For the reasons
stated below, Defendants’ Motion is denied.
A. Standard
“A district court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases arising under Title
11 of the United States Code, 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a).” In re Dwek, 2010 WL 2545174, at *2
(D.N.J. June 18, 2010). Further, “district courts [ ] have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of
all civil proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in or related to cases under title 11.” 28
U.S.C. § 1334(b). Thus, district courts have the discretion to either hear these cases or refer
them, in whole or part, to the bankruptcy judges for the district. 28 U.S.C. § 157(a).
Accordingly, the District Court of New Jersey has “referred all proceedings arising under Title
11 to the bankruptcy court pursuant to a standing order of reference dated July 23, 1984.” Kohn
v. Haymount Ltd. P'ship, LP, 2006 WL 2417297, at *1 (D.N.J. Aug. 21, 2006).
Section 157(d) of Title 28 enables a District Court to withdraw the reference for cause
shown. In re Velocita Corp., 169 F. App'x 712, 716 (3d Cir. 2006). In determining whether to
withdraw the reference, “[r]elevant factors include ‘the goals of promoting uniformity in
bankruptcy administration, reducing forum shopping and confusion, fostering the economical use
of the debtors' and creditors' resources, and expediting the bankruptcy process.’” Id. (citing In re
Pruitt, 910 F.2d 1160, 1168 (3d Cir.1990) (citations omitted)). Additionally, “[t]he threshold
factor is whether the proceeding subject to the withdrawal request is “core” or “non-core” to the
bankruptcy action.” In re Kara Homes, Inc., 2009 WL 2223035, at *1 (D.N.J. July 22, 2009).
“Core proceedings are ‘all cases under title 11 and all core proceedings arising under title
11, or arising in a case under title 11.’” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1); see also In re Kara Homes, Inc.,
2009 WL 2223035, at *1 (citing In re Seven Fields Dev. Corp., 505 F.3d 237, 254 (3d
Cir.2007)). “A non-core proceeding is one that is ‘not a core proceeding but that is otherwise
related to a case under title 11.’” 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1); see In re Seven Fields Dev. Corp., 505
1
F.3d at 254. “The bankruptcy judge shall determine. . . whether a proceeding is a core
proceeding . . . or is a proceeding that is otherwise related to a case under title 11. . . Thus, the
bankruptcy judge, not the district court, determines whether a proceeding is core or non-core.”
In re Kara Homes, Inc., 2009 WL 2223035, at *1 (internal citation omitted).
B.
Analysis
Defendants seek to withdraw the reference, arguing that a State law issue exists regarding
whether real property located at 463 Monmouth Road, Jackson, New Jersey 08527, owned in
Trust, is part of the bankruptcy estate. Defendants contend that this is a non-core issue and
should be determined by the District Court. However, nowhere in Defendants’ moving papers
do they allege whether the Bankruptcy Court has determined whether this issue is core or noncore. Rather, Defendants contend that “[t]he Trustee seems to believe that this matter is a core
proceeding. . .” [docket #1, p. 5]. As stated above, it is the Bankruptcy Judge, not the District
Court, that determines whether a proceeding is core or non-core and accordingly, Defendants’
motion to withdraw the reference is premature and must be denied.1 See In re Kara Homes, Inc.,
2009 WL 2223035.
In their moving papers, Defendants also seek to have the Adversary Trial and all related
Bankruptcy Court proceedings stayed or adjourned pending the final outcome or disposition of
this issue. Defendants’ trial in the Bankruptcy Court was scheduled to begin on May 2, 2014,
approximately two (2) weeks after the instant motion was filed. On May 1, 2014, however, the
Honorable Michael B. Kaplan, United States Bankruptcy Judge, considered this portion of
Defendants’ motion and, for other reasons, adjourned Defendants’ trial to June 19, 2014. As
such, Defendants’ request to this Court for an adjournment or a stay is moot.
The Court finds that Defendants have not met their burden of demonstrating that
withdrawing the reference is proper. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to withdraw the reference
must be DENIED.
/s/ Joel A. Pisano
JOEL A. PISANO
United States District Judge
1
In any event, even assuming that the issue is not premature, in considering the relevant factors this Court is not
convinced that Defendants’ reference should be withdrawn. See In re Int'l Auction & Appraisal Servs. LLC, 493
B.R. 460, 463 (Bankr. M.D. Pa. 2013) (“. . . fraudulent conveyance actions are specifically denoted as ‘core’
proceedings arising under the Bankruptcy Code and subject to final determination by the bankruptcy court.”)
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?