INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES DISTRICT COUNCIL 711 HEALTH & WELFARE AND VACATION FUNDS AND FINISHING TRADES INSTITUTE et al v. HOWELL GENERAL GLAZING CONTRACTORS CORPORATION
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 12/15/2014. (eaj)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
PAINTERS & ALLIED TRADES
DISTRICT COUNCIL 711, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
HOWELL GENERAL GLAZING
CONTRACTORS CORPORATION,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-5174 (MLC)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
THE PLAINTIFFS brought this action (“District Court Action”) to recover
contributions owed to certain employee benefit funds. (See dkt. entry no. 1, Compl.) The
defendant thereafter petitioned for bankruptcy relief (“Bankruptcy Matter”) in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey (“Bankruptcy Court”). See In re
Howell General Glazing Contractors Corp., Bankr. D.N.J. No. 14-30544 (“In re
Howell”), dkt. entry no. 1, 10-8-14 Pet.
THE PLAINTIFF is listed as a creditor in the Bankruptcy Matter, which is being
actively litigated. See id., 10-8-14 Sched. F - Creditors Holding Unsecured Nonpriority
Claims; id., 10-8-14 Statement of Fin. Affairs.
THIS COURT intends to refer all of the claims asserted in the District Court
Action to the Bankruptcy Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) (stating “district court may
provide that any or all cases under title 11 and any or all proceedings arising under title 11
or arising in or related to a case under title 11 shall be referred to the bankruptcy judges
for the district”).1
THE EXTENT of the Bankruptcy Court’s jurisdiction over the claims depends on
whether the District Court Action concerns: (1) a core proceeding; or (2) a non-core
proceeding, which is a proceeding that is otherwise related to a case under title 11. See
28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)–(4); see also 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) (stating bankruptcy court may
enter orders and judgments in core proceeding); 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) (stating bankruptcy
court may only submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to district court in
non-core proceeding, and final order or judgment to be entered by district court after
considering same); see also Mullarkey v. Tamboer (In re Mullarkey), 536 F.3d 215,
220–21 (3d Cir. 2008) (discussing bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction). The Bankruptcy
Court itself will determine the extent of that jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3)
(stating bankruptcy court determines whether matter is core proceeding or related-to
proceeding); Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London v. Otlowski, No. 08-3998, 2009
WL 234957, at *2 (D.N.J. Jan. 29, 2009) (stating “Section 157(b)(3) calls for the
bankruptcy judge to make the initial decision on whether a case is a core proceeding, and
its language is not ambiguous”); E. W. Trade Partners v. Sobel WP (In re E. W. Trade
1
This is also permitted pursuant to the Standing Order of Reference by the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, dated July 23, 1984.
2
Partners), No. 06-1812, 2007 WL 1213393, at *3–4 (D.N.J. Apr. 23, 2007) (stating
same).
THE COURT will issue an appropriate order.
s/ Mary L. Cooper
MARY L. COOPER
United States District Judge
Dated: December 15, 2014
3
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?