Bonney v. Vanguard Fiduciary Trust Company

Filing 13

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Frank H. Seay granting Defendant's 4 Motion to Withdraw Reference. The parties are ordered to file a Joint Status Report with the Court by February 20, 2015. (adw, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

WILLIAM MARK BONNEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
VANGUARD FIDUCIARY TRUST COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
) No. CIV-15-21-FHS
) Bankr. No. 10-80750-TRC
) Adv. No. 14-08017-TRC
)
)
)
)
)

OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court for its consideration is the Motion to
Withdraw Reference (Doc. No. 4) filed by Defendant, Vanguard
Fiduciary Trust Company (“Vanguard”). Vanguard requests this
Court withdraw the reference of the underlying adversary
proceeding from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Eastern District of Oklahoma pursuant to Fed.R.Bankr.P. 5011,
Local Rule 84.1, and LBR 5011-1 of the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

Vanguard contends

the withdrawal of the reference is appropriate because (1) the
Adversary Proceeding is a proceeding that is otherwise related to
the underlying case pending under Title 11, not a core
proceeding, (2) it has made a demand for a jury trial, and is
entitled to a jury trial, in connection with such claims, and (3)
alternatively, Vanguard moves to withdraw the reference on the
grounds that the Bankruptcy Court lacks constitutional authority
to enter a final judgment against Vanguard for the relief sought.
In response, the Trustee agrees the withdrawal of the reference
is appropriate, but he asks that the Bankruptcy Court be

1

allowed to retain jurisdiction of the case until it is “trial
ready” so as to allow the Bankruptcy Court to supervise
discovery, conduct pre-trial hearings, and rule on motions. The
Court concludes Vanguard’s Motion to Withdraw Reference should be
granted.
On January 13, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3) regarding its jurisdiction. See
Local Rule 84.1(b)(4)(“Within a time period reasonable under the
circumstances of the matter, the bankruptcy judge shall enter an
order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3) determining whether the
proceeding is a core proceeding or a proceeding that is otherwise
related to a case under Title 11 and forward the order to the
district court together with a copy of the record of the
proceeding for which withdrawal is sought.”). The Bankruptcy
Court determined that the district court should grant Vanguard’s
motion to withdraw the reference immediately.

The court found

that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 157 (d) whether this case is a
core or non-core proceeding does not appear to be determinative
where resolution of the case will involve other laws of the
United States regulating organization or activities affecting
interstate commerce as Vanguard alleges.

The court found no

reason to retain the case for pretrial matters. The court found
that judicial economy will be served if all matters involving
this proceeding are conducted in the court that ultimately
presides over the jury trial.
The Court agrees with and adopts the findings and
conclusions of the Bankruptcy Court in its January 13, 2015,
Order. The Court has considered, but rejects, the parties’
suggestion that the withdrawal of these claims should be deferred
until the case is “trial ready.” Consequently, the Court orders
2

the reference withdrawn immediately.
Vanguard’s Motion to Withdraw Reference (Doc. No. 4) is
therefore granted. The parties are ordered to file a Joint Status
Report with the Court by February 20, 2015.

It is so ordered this 30th day of January, 2015.

3