IRIZARRY
v.
RODRIGUEZ
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied the plaintiff's motion to withdraw the reference and for abstention relief, finding that the bankruptcy court is best suited to handle the matter.
Plaintiff filed a motion to withdraw a bankruptcy reference and for abstention relief. The adversary proceeding arose from prior bankruptcy proceeding…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse 28 U.S.C. § 157(D) cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court on “Plaintiff/Debtor’s Motion to Withdraw the Reference and Motion for Related or Alternative Abstention Relief.” (Doc. 1.) Based on the motion, response, court file, and record, the Court denies the motion. Plaintiff briefly suggests that mandatory withdrawal of the reference applies but offers no argument that resolution of the adversary proceeding will require consideration of non-bankruptcy federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) (“The district court shall . . . so withdraw a proceeding 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”); In re Hvide Marine Inc., 248 B.R. 841, 844 (M.D. Fla. 2000) (holding that mandatory withdrawal of reference is required only where non-bankruptcy code federal issues warrant “substantial and material consideration”) (internal quotation omitted). Nor has Plaintiff demonstrated cause for permissive withdrawal of the reference. The claims in the adversary proceeding arise out of prior bankruptcy proceedings and will require consideration of bankruptcy law and procedure. Efficiency and judicial economy are therefore best served by having the bankruptcy court handle the matter. Accordingly, the bankruptcy court will handle all pretrial matters, including dispositive motions. The motion to withdraw the reference is denied without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling the motion as the case nears trial. Plaintiff’s alternative request for abstention relief should be addressed by the bankruptcy court and is therefore denied without prejudice. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:
1. “Plaintiff/Debtor’s Motion to Withdraw the Reference and Motion for Related or Alternative Abstention Relief” (Doc. 1) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may refile his motion to withdraw the reference at the time of trial.
2. The Clerk is directed to close this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 31st day of August, 2021.
[| Ld —~ a Phi
TOM BARBER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hvide Marine Towing, Inc. v. Kimbrell (In Re Hvide Marie Inc.), 248 B.R. 841 (M.D. Fla. 2000)