CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Crawford
Filing
8
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 2 MOTION to Withdraw Reference filed by CitiMortgage, Inc.: that the motion be GRANTED. That CitiMortgage should be required to re-file a copy of the foreclosure complaint, the class action counterclaim, and any other pertinent pleadings originally filed in state court and removed to Bankruptcy Court. Objections to R&R due by 6/8/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 5/22/12. (jl1)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
CITIMORTGAGE, INC.,
Case No. 1:11-cv-714
Plaintiff,
Spiegel, J.
Bowman, M.J.
v.
TODD CHRISTOPHER CRAWFORD,
Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff has filed a motion to withdraw the reference of this Adversary Proceeding
(Case No. 11-1083) from the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Cincinnati
Division, back to this United States District Court. (Doc. 2). The Clerk of the Bankruptcy
Court transferred Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw the reference (which was also filed in the
pending bankruptcy case) to the United States District Court for disposition. Pursuant to
local practice, because the Defendant initially appeared to be a pro se litigant, the pending
motion was referred by the presiding district judge to the undersigned magistrate judge.
The background of this case was previously summarized in a “show cause” order filed on
May 3, 2012, (Doc. 4), but is repeated here for the convenience of the Court.
I. Background
In 2009, Defendant Crawford filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in
the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Plaintiff CitiMortgage filed a motion
seeking relief from the automatic stay, and relief was granted by the Bankruptcy Court on
August 27, 2009. More than a year later, on January 24, 2011, CitiMortgage filed a
mortgage foreclosure action in the Court of Common Pleas, Butler County (“state court”).
In response to the state court foreclosure proceeding, Defendant Crawford and his spouse,
through counsel, filed a class action counter-claim with jury demand, asserting among
other claims that CitiMortgage had breached a contract with them, made
misrepresentations, and violated Ohio’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The Crawfords
sought to have a putative class certified under Rule 23 of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure
for “[a]ll Ohio homeowners whose loans have been serviced by Citi and who, have
complied with all their obligations under a written TPP [Trial Period Plan] Agreement, but
have not received a permanent HAMP [Home Affordable Modification Program]
modification.” See generally Doc. 2-2 (Answer and Counterclaim).
After being served with the Crawfords’ Answer and Counterclaim, CitiMortgage filed
a notice of removal of the entire state court foreclosure action to the Bankruptcy Court.
The removed litigation was filed as an “Adversary Proceeding” associated with the ongoing
Bankruptcy Proceeding, and assigned a new associated case number, Adversary
Proceeding No. 11-ap-01083.
Ordinarily, under this Court’s General Order of Reference to the bankruptcy courts,
all cases that arise “under the Bankruptcy Act and Title 11 of the United States Code,” or
that are “related to a case under the Bankruptcy Act and Title 11 of the United States
Code,” are referred to the Bankruptcy Court. See General Order No. 05-02. However, a
district court may withdraw the reference of a proceeding to bankruptcy court either “on its
own motion or on timely motion of any party, for cause shown,” and a district court “shall”
withdraw the reference “if the court determines that resolution of the proceeding requires
consideration of both title 11 and other laws of the United States regulating organizations
2
or activities affecting interstate commerce.” 28 U.S.C. §157(d).1 CitiMortgage now seeks
to withdraw the prior reference of the foreclosure proceeding and related counterclaim from
the Bankruptcy Court back to this United States District Court, on both permissive and
mandatory grounds.
Although CitiMortgage’s motion to withdraw the reference was originally filed in
Bankruptcy Court and transferred to this Court in June 2011, it was not docketed as a new
case proceeding in this Court until October 12, 2011.
Since that time, the motion to
withdraw the reference has remained dormant. S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.2(a)(2) provides that
a memorandum in opposition “shall be served and filed within twenty-one (21) days from
the date of service set forth in the certificate of service attached to the Motion.” Although
more than 21 days have passed since the date of service of Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw
the prior reference of this adversary proceeding from the Bankruptcy Court, in order to
have the case proceed instead in this United States District Court, Defendant initially filed
no response to the Plaintiff’s motion.
For that reason, and because Defendant Crawford had been represented by
counsel in other related proceedings, on May 3, 2012 the undersigned issued a “show
cause” order to Defendant Crawford, directing him to show cause “why the Plaintiff’s
motion should not be construed as unopposed and granted for the reasons stated in the
motion.” The Court directed the Clerk of Court to serve Mr. Crawford’s prior counsel with
1
In Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), the United States Suprem e Court held that 28
U.S.C. §157 was unconstitutional as applied, to the extent that the Bankruptcy Court lacked authority
under Article III to enter final judgm ent on a counterclaim that arose under state law, even though that
claim was related to the underlying bankruptcy case. Stern arguably provides even stronger support
in this case for the withdrawal of the reference over this adversarial proceeding from the
Bankruptcy Court, and the return of proceedings to this United States District Court.
3
a “courtesy copy” of the “show cause” order.
Following entry of the Court’s May 3, 2012 order, Jack S. Gatlin of Freund, Freeze
and Arnold entered his appearance as new counsel and filed a response on Defendant
Crawford’s behalf. The response succinctly and clearly states that Defendant Crawford
“has no objection to the motion filed by CitiMortgage, Inc. to withdraw the reference.” (Doc.
6).
II. Conclusion and Recommendation
For the reasons stated in the now-unopposed motion of Plaintiff CitiMortgage to
withdraw the reference to the United States Bankruptcy Court and proceed with the
litigation in this district court (Doc. 2), IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the motion be
GRANTED. For clarification, CitiMortgage should be required to re-file in this record a
copy of the foreclosure complaint, the class action counterclaim, and any other pertinent
pleadings originally filed in state court and removed to Bankruptcy Court. (See Doc. 2-2).
s/ Stephanie K. Bowman
Stephanie K. Bowman
United States Magistrate Judge
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
CITIMORTGAGE, INC.,
Case No. 1:11-cv-714
Plaintiff,
Spiegel, J.
Bowman, M.J.
v.
TODD CHRISTOPHER CRAWFORD,
Defendant.
NOTICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written
objections to this Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of the
filing date of this R&R. That period may be extended further by the Court on timely motion
by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the portion(s) of the
R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the
objections. A party shall respond to an opponent’s objections within FOURTEEN (14)
DAYS after being served with a copy of those objections. Failure to make objections in
accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
5
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?