Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01401/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01401-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: PACERS, INC.,

Debtor.

__________________________________

MIDWAY VENTURE, LLC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

LESLIE T. GLADSTONE, Trustee,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 11-cv-1401-L(BGS)

Bankruptcy Case No. 09-12738-LA-11

Adversary Action No. 10-90527-LA

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

WITHDRAW THE REFERENCE

[DOC. 9] 

Plaintiff Midway Venture, LLC. moves to withdraw the reference of the adversary action

that it commenced in the bankruptcy court. Plaintiff asserts two causes of action in the operative

second amended complaint (“SAC”) in the adversary proceeding for (1) misrepresentation, and

(2) implied equitable indemnity. Defendant Leslie T. Gladstone, Chapter 11 Trustee, opposes.

The Court found this motion suitable for determination on the papers submitted and

without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(d.1). (Doc. 13.) For the following reasons, the Court

GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw the reference.

//

11cv1401

Case 3:11-cv-01401-L-BGS Document 18 Filed 03/20/12 Page 1 of 7
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

I. BACKGROUND

On August 27, 2009, Pacers, Inc. filed its Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. On March 19,

2010, the bankruptcy court appointed Defendant as the Chapter 11 Trustee. At the time of

Defendant’s appointment, the bankruptcy estate’s assets included the transferable assets of an

adult entertainment business then doing business as “Larry Flynt’s Hustler Club.” On April 29,

2010, Defendant moved to sell the assets of debtor’s estate to Peter Z. Balov, Steven R. Bitter,

and Plaintiff. On June 8, 2010, the bankruptcy court entered an order granting Defendant’s

motion.

On November 1, 2010, Plaintiff commenced an adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy

court against defendants LFP IP, LLC, LFP Publishing Group, LLC, Larry C. Flynt, Keith

Campbell, and Defendant Leslie T. Gladstone. In that complaint, Plaintiff asserted causes of

action for (1) declaratory relief, (2) misrepresentation, (3) breach of implied covenant of good

faith and fair dealing, and (4) implied equitable indemnity. All the defendants have since been

dismissed except for Gladstone. On March 8, 2011, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint

(“FAC”) against the Defendant asserting causes of action for misrepresentation and implied

equitable indemnity. On March 16, 2011, Plaintiff filed a SAC—which is the subject of this

motion—alleging the same causes of action.

On April 18, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion in the bankruptcy court to withdraw the

reference of the adversary action and to remove the action to the district court. Plaintiff

contends that the Bankruptcy Court Clerk failed to forward the motion to the district court. 

(Pl.’s Mot. 11:26–28.) The bankruptcy court subsequently denied Plaintiff’s motion.

On August 11, 2011, Plaintiff filed this motion in this Court to withdraw the reference. 

The parties have fully briefed the motion.

//

//

//

//

//

2 11cv1401

Case 3:11-cv-01401-L-BGS Document 18 Filed 03/20/12 Page 2 of 7
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

II. ANALYSIS1

A. The Adversary Action Is a Non-Core Proceeding.

District courts have discretion to refer “any or all cases under title 11 and any or all

proceedings arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11” to the

bankruptcy judges for that district. 28 U.S.C. § 157(a). “[B]ankruptcy courts may hear and enter

final judgments in ‘core proceedings’ in a bankruptcy case.” Stern v. Marshall, — U.S. —, 131

S. Ct. 2594, 2601–02 (2011). In non-core proceedings—proceedings that are not core but are

“otherwise related to a case under title 11,” 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1)—“the bankruptcy courts

instead submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court, for that

court’s review and issuance of final judgment.” Stern, 131 S. Ct. at 2601–02.

The District Court “may withdraw in whole or in part, any case proceeding referred, on its

own motion or on timely motion of any party, for cause shown.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). “Core

proceedings are actions by or against the debtor that arise under the Bankruptcy Code in the

strong sense that the Code itself is the source of the claimant’s right or remedy, rather than just

the procedural vehicle for the assertion of a right covered by some other body of law, normally

state law.” Matter of U.S. Brass Corp., 110 F.3d 1261, 1268 (7th Cir. 1997). The party seeking

withdrawal of the reference bears the burden of showing that the reference should be withdrawn. 

In re Larry’s Apartment, LLC, 210 B.R. 469, 472 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 1997).

In this case, Plaintiff moves to withdraw the reference of the adversary complaint based

on the contention that the claims that it asserts are not core bankruptcy matters, but instead are

based on alleged violations of state law. Plaintiff argues that its causes of action for

misrepresentation and implied equitable indemnity do not invoke a substantive right created by

federal bankruptcy law and therefore, are non-core proceedings that should be heard in this

 As a preliminary matter, Defendant contends that Plaintiff “has failed to make a timely 1

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3).” (Def.’s Opp’n 7:11–20.) “A motion to withdraw is timely

if it was made as promptly as possible in light of developments in the bankruptcy proceeding.” 

Sec. Farms v. Int’l Bros. of Teamsters, Chauffers, Warehousemen & Helpers, 124 F.3d 999,

1007 n.3 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). Defendant fails to address whether

Plaintiff’s motion was filed as promptly as possible. Accordingly, the Court rejects and finds no

basis to her contention that Plaintiff’s motion is untimely. See id.

3 11cv1401

Case 3:11-cv-01401-L-BGS Document 18 Filed 03/20/12 Page 3 of 7
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

Court. (Pl.’s Mot. 4:4–6.) In other words, like the Stern case, the state law claims at issue in this

action are “in no way derived from or dependent upon bankruptcy law.” See Stern, 131 S. Ct. at

2618. In response, Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s adversary action is a core proceeding

because Plaintiff conceded that it was a core proceeding in its initial complaint for damages and

again in its FAC. (Def.’s Opp’n 2:6–7.) The Court disagrees with Defendant. 

Plaintiff’s prior concessions have no bearing on this Court’s determination. Plaintiff’s

causes of action relate to a sales transaction that merely involved bankruptcy proceedings, and

thus “is not a core proceeding but . . . is otherwise related to a case under title 11.” See 28

U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). In addition, Plaintiff’s alleged misrepresentation is an action at “common

law[,] . . . the very type of claim that . . . must be decided by an Article III court.” Stern, 131 S.

Ct. at 2616. Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s adversary proceeding is a non-core

proceeding.

B. Plaintiff Is Entitled to a Jury Trial in the District Court.

According to the Bankruptcy Code, “[i]f the right to a jury trial applies in a proceeding

that may be heard under this section by a bankruptcy judge, the bankruptcy judge may conduct

the jury trial if specifically designated to exercise such jurisdiction and with the express consent

of all the parties.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(e). The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury

trial for the determination of legal, as opposed to equitable, rights and remedies. Feltner v.

Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 523 U.S. 340, 347–48 (1998). The right to a jury trial is a

fundamental constitutional right and, accordingly, should carry a presumption against waiver. 

See Aetna Ins. Co. v. Kennedy, 301 U.S. 389, 394 (1937); see also Beacon Theatres, Inc. v.

Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 510 (1959) (wherever possible, the constitutional right to a jury trial

must be preserved).

Plaintiff argues that withdrawal to this Court is appropriate because of its right to a jury

trial and because withdrawing the reference now would promote judicial efficiency. (Pl.’s Mot.

12:19–13:2, 13:14–21.) It emphasizes that it did not consent to having the bankruptcy court

conduct a jury trial and enter a final judgment in the operative complaint before the Court. (Id.

4 11cv1401

Case 3:11-cv-01401-L-BGS Document 18 Filed 03/20/12 Page 4 of 7
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

at 9:14–19.) Furthermore, Plaintiff explains that withdrawing the reference now instead of

waiting until the bankruptcy court has made pretrial rulings would be more efficient because “it

is likely that the Bankruptcy Court’s interlocutory rulings will ultimately end before this Court

and the jury trial will eventually be conducted by this Court.” (Id. at 13:18–21.) 

Citing Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33 (1989), Defendant responds that

Plaintiff has no right to a jury trial because “once a party invokes the core jurisdiction of the

USBC by filing a proof of claim, that party has no Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.” 

(Def.’s Opp’n at 8:20–21.) She suggests that by filing a proof of claim, Plaintiff, the creditor,

has forsaken its right to adjudicate before a jury on issues that bear directly on the allowance of

that claim. (Id. at 8:23–9:2.) Defendant also emphasizes that Plaintiff “has voluntarily and

repeatedly submitted itself to the jurisdiction” of the bankruptcy court. (Id. at 9:2–6.)

In Granfinanciera, the Supreme Court set forth a three-part test for determining whether a

party asserting a statutory cause of action is entitled to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment

in the context of bankruptcy litigation. 492 U.S. at 42–43. First, a court must “compare the

statutory action to 18th-century actions brought in the courts of England prior to the merger of

the courts of law and equity.” Id. at 42. Second, it must “examine the remedy sought and

determine whether it is legal or equitable in nature.” Id. “If, on balance, these two factors

indicate that a party is entitled to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment,” the third step is to

“determine whether Congress may assign and has assigned resolution of the relevant claim to a

non-Article III adjudicative body that does not use a jury as factfinder.” Id. Elaborating on this

last step, the court explained that Congress may assign resolution of a claim to a non-Article III

body that does not use a jury as a factfinder only if the claim is based on a public, rather than

private, right. Id. at 51. That said, not every claim that arises from a bankruptcy proceeding

necessarily implicates a public right. See id. at 55–58. A claim is a matter of public right only

when it arises part of the process of allowance and disallowance of claims. Id. at 58. 

It is not likely that Plaintiff’s claims fall within the purview of Granfinanciera. First,

unlike the creditor in Granfinanciera, Plaintiff’s claims of misrepresentation and implied

equitable indemnity are common law claims, not statutory claims. Second, Plaintiff’s claims do

5 11cv1401

Case 3:11-cv-01401-L-BGS Document 18 Filed 03/20/12 Page 5 of 7
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

not arise from the bankruptcy proceeding itself; they simply relate to the bankruptcy proceeding. 

Even assuming that Granfinanciera applies, the outcome of its application favors a jury

trial. The remedy sought by Plaintiff is legal in nature. Further, under Stern, the adversary

proceeding is a non-core proceeding—it does not arise out of bankruptcy law—and therefore has

not been assigned by Congress to be adjudicated by the Bankruptcy Court. Moreover, even

where the “resolution of a party’s legal claims aris[e] from a bankruptcy proceeding,” but will

have only “a negligible impact on the claims-allowance process, the right to a jury trial is

preserved.” In re Crown Vantage, Inc., No. C 02-03836, 2002 WL 32872440, at *3 (N.D. Cal.

Dec. 16, 2002). Because Plaintiff did not waive its jury-trial right or otherwise consent to a jury

trial in the bankruptcy court, and because Plaintiff’s common-law claims do not arise out of

bankruptcy law, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial in the district court.

C. The Factors Favor Withdrawal of the Reference.

Finally, the Court must still determine whether withdrawal of the reference is required,

and, if not, whether it should exercise its discretion to do so at this moment. “A valid right to a

Seventh Amendment jury trial in the district court does not mean the bankruptcy court must

instantly give up jurisdiction and that the action must be transferred to the district court.” In re

Healthcentral.com, 504 F.3d 775, 788 (9th Cir. 2007). “Instead . . . the bankruptcy court may

retain jurisdiction over the action for pretrial matters.” Id. Even where the presence of non-core

claims and a jury demand dictate that the reference to the bankruptcy court ultimately may have

to be withdrawn, a district court may exercise its discretion not to withdraw the reference

immediately where, for example, the bankruptcy court already is familiar with the relevant facts

and issues, and the issues triable by a jury are not yet ripe for trial. See, e.g., Barlow & Peek,

163 B.R. at 179; In re Orion Pictures Corp., 4 F.3d 1095, 1101–02 (2d Cir. 1993).

The Bankruptcy Code specifically provides that a bankruptcy court may hear and “submit

proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court,” subject to de novo review,

in a proceeding “that is not a core proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). Thus, the Court may

decline to withdraw the reference and require the bankruptcy court to provide proposed findings

6 11cv1401

Case 3:11-cv-01401-L-BGS Document 18 Filed 03/20/12 Page 6 of 7
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

of fact and conclusions of law. In the Ninth Circuit, the court must consider five factors to

determine whether it should exercise its discretion and withdraw the reference: (1) efficient use

of judicial resources; (2) delay and costs to the parties; (3) uniformity of bankruptcy

administration; (4) the prevention of forum shopping; and (5) other related factors. Sec. Farms,

124 F.3d at 1008. 

Here, the most efficient use of judicial resources supports withdrawal of the reference. 

The Court is able to consider the factual and legal basis for the adversary action, which is based

on determinations of state-law causes of action, without unreasonable delay or costs. Because

this type of action has been considered frequently in the district court, the results of the

adversary litigation would likely be consistent with similar cases. This is not a case where there

are complex issues of law that require consideration of the interplay between bankruptcy and

state-law issues. Furthermore, because Plaintiff’s causes of action are non-core, the bankruptcy

court may not enter a final judgment. As a result, given the circumstances of this case, this

action would inevitably return to this Court.

In sum, the factors favor withdrawal of the reference. See Sec. Farms, 124 F.3d at 1008. 

Thus, the Court exercises its discretions to withdraw the reference.

III. CONCLUSION & ORDERS

In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw the

reference. Defendant shall answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s SAC by April 9, 2012. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 20, 2012

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. BERNARD G. SKOMAL

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

7 11cv1401

Case 3:11-cv-01401-L-BGS Document 18 Filed 03/20/12 Page 7 of 7