Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02657/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02657-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 423
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Withdrawal 28 USC 157
Cause of Action: 28:0157 Motion for Withdrawal of Reference

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re )

)

CHUNG XAY LUU, )

)

Debtor. )

)

)

PREM DHAWAN, Trustee in ) 2: 06-cv-2657-GEB-KJM

Bankruptcy, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER

v. )

)

THAM THI MAI, )

)

Defendant. )

)

On February 5, 2007, Defendant filed a motion to alter or

amend findings of fact and conclusions of law and to alter or amend

the Court’s Order denying Defendant’s motion to withdraw reference to

the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of

California. In its motion, Defendant cites authority that was not

previously brought to the Court’s attention. Specifically, Defendant

cites a Supreme Court decision in Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg,

492 U.S. 33 (1989), for the proposition that “fraudulent transfer

actions are the assertion of private rights that more nearly resemble

Case 2:06-cv-02657-GEB -KJM Document 10 Filed 02/08/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 It is unclear from the motion what precisely Defendant

requests this Court to do. The notice asks the Court to

“consider altering or amending its Findings of Fact and

Conclusions of Law . . . and its Order Denying Defendant’s Motion

to Withdraw Reference.” (Mot. at 1.) The motion also references

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, and states that it “is really

a ‘motion for reconstruction.’” (Id. at 2, 5.) Although

Defendant does not clearly indicate what procedural mechanism its

motion relies upon and does not comply with the requirements of

Local Rule 78-230(k), the cited authority, which should have been

brought to the Court’s attention in the original motion to

withdraw reference, indicates the ruling should be reconsidered

sua sponte. The motion will remain on calendar for March 19,

2007, and the briefing schedule will remain the same.

2

state-law contract claims and are not core proceedings” and they

therefore “mandate jury trials.” (Mot. at 3.) Further, Defendant

cites a case from this district also concerning fraudulent conveyances

where the court determined that the defendant had the right to a jury

trial, and since Defendant did not consent to holding such a trial in

Bankruptcy court, the reference was withdrawn. (Id. at 4; Index of

Exhibits, Ex. D.) The applicability of the cited authority shall be

addressed in the parties’ remaining briefs on this motion.1 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 7, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-02657-GEB -KJM Document 10 Filed 02/08/07 Page 2 of 2