In re: Tonya Lee Brown
Filing
11
OPINION AND ORDER finding as moot 2 Motion to Withdraw Reference; finding as moot 6 Motion ; finding as moot 7 Motion to Stay; finding as moot 8 Motion for Sanctions; finding as moot 9 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 1 Motion to Withdraw Reference. Signed by Senior Judge Peter C. Economus on 5/20/2015. (ds)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
IN RE RONALD BROWN
Case No. 2:15-cv-1487
Judge Peter C. Economus
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Ronald and Tanya Brown’s (“Mr. and Mrs.
Brown” or “the Browns”) motion to withdraw pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). (ECF No. 1.) Also
pending in this action are Mr. and Mrs. Brown’s second motion to withdraw (ECF No. 2);
amended motion to convert Chapter 11 to Chapter 13 (ECF No. 6); motion to stay bankruptcy
proceedings (ECF No. 7); motion for sanctions (ECF No. 8); and amended motion for sanctions
(ECF No. 9).
For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Mr. and Mrs. Brown’s motion to
withdraw. (ECF No. 1.) The Court further DENIES AS MOOT all other pending motions in this
action.
I.
Background
In 2008, the Browns were named as defendants in a state foreclosure action in the
Delaware County Court of Common Pleas. See Case No. 08–CVE–12–1598. The Browns
attempted to remove the foreclosure case to this Court multiple times. This Court remanded the
action to the state court. As a result of the foreclosure action, the Browns filed for bankruptcy in
the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio. See Case No. 2:11-bk60762. The Browns also initiated two adversary proceedings at the bankruptcy court. See Case
No. 12-AP-2059 (“Adversary Proceeding One); Case No. 13-AP-2155 (Adversary Proceeding
Two). The Bankruptcy Court dismissed both adversary proceedings. The Browns have exhausted
all possible remedies at the Bankruptcy Court. Therefore, the Browns sought to withdraw the
bankruptcy reference Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) and initiated In Re Ronald Brown,
Case No. 2:14-cv-2014 in this Court. This Court denied Mr. and Mrs. Brown’s motion to
withdraw in In Re Ronald Brown. The Browns again seek withdrawal of the bankruptcy
references in this action titled In Re Tanya Brown, Case No. 15-cv-1487. For the same reasons
stated in In Re Ronald Brown, this Court denies the motion in this action.
II.
Standard of Review
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 in accordance with and under this Court’s General Order of
Reference to the bankruptcy courts. See U.S. Dist. Ct. R. S. D. Ohio, General Order No. 05–02.
In certain circumstances, a district can “on its own motion or on timely motion of any party”
withdraw a reference to the bankruptcy courts. 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).
There are two types of withdrawal—mandatory and permissive. Section 157(d) mandates
that a district court withdraw a 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 or activities affecting interstate commerce.” Section 157(d) of the Bankruptcy
Code permits the district court to “withdraw, in whole or in part, any case or proceeding referred
under this section, on its own motion or on timely motion of any party, for cause shown.” 28
U.S.C. § 157(d). “The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating that the reference should
be withdrawn.” In re Inkstop, Inc., No. 1:12MC04, 2012 WL 300626, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 31,
2012) (citing In re Vicars Ins. Agency, Inc., 96 F.3d 949, 953 (7th Cir. 1996)).
2
III.
Analysis
The Court now turns to Mr. and Mrs. Brown’s motion to withdraw. The Browns ask this
Court to withdraw the entire bankruptcy proceeding. The Browns contend that this Court should
grant their motion to withdrawal because the adversary proceedings require “consideration of
both title 11 and other laws of the United States regulating organizations or activities affecting
interstate commerce.” (ECF No. 1 at 2.) Mr. and Mrs. Brown’s argument is not well taken.
The Court notes that Mr. and Mrs. Brown’s motion is not timely. “Courts have generally
defined timely as ‘as soon as possible after the moving party is aware of grounds for withdrawal
of reference’ or as ‘at the first reasonable opportunity after the moving party is aware of grounds
for withdrawal of reference.”’ In re Black Diamond Min. Co., LLC, No. CIV.A. 10-84-KKC,
2010 WL 5173271, at *1 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 14, 2010) (quoting In re Mahlman, 149 B.R. 866, 869
(N.D. Ill. 1993)). “The reason for the timeliness requirement is to prevent parties from forum
shopping, stalling, or otherwise engaging in obstructionist tactics.” Id. The Browns waited years
to file their motion to withdraw. The Browns filed for bankruptcy in 2011. (ECF No. 1.)
Moreover, the Browns have already attempted to withdraw both adversary proceedings. See
Brown v. Florida Coastal Partners, LLC, No. 2:13-CV-1225, 2014 WL 2169561 (S.D. Ohio
May 23, 2014). The Court finds that the Browns motion is simply an attempt to forum shop,
stall, and otherwise engage in obstructionist tactics.
IV.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court hereby DENIES Mr. and Mrs. Brown’s
motion to withdraw. (ECF No. 1.) The Court further DENIES AS MOOT Mr. and Mrs.
Brown’s second motion to withdraw (ECF No. 2); amended motion to convert Chapter 11 to
3
Chapter 13 (ECF No. 6); motion to stay bankruptcy proceedings (ECF No. 7); motion for
sanctions (ECF No. 8); and amended motion for sanctions (ECF No. 9).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
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?