Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02657/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02657-9/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re ) 2:06-cv-2657-GEB-KJM

)

CHUNG XAY LUU, )

)

Debtor. ) ORDER

)

)

PREM DHAWAN, Trustee in )

Bankruptcy, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

THAM THI MAI, )

)

Defendant. )

)

Plaintiff Prem Dhawan, the bankruptcy trustee (“Plaintiff”),

moves to (1) amend the Final Pretrial Order issued August 14, 2007, to

permit Plaintiff to file a motion for summary judgment; or, in the

alternative, (2) for a trial date earlier than what is prescribed in

the Final Pretrial Order; or, in the alternative, (3) for

reinstatement of the reference to the bankruptcy court. Defendant

Case 2:06-cv-02657-GEB -KJM Document 82 Filed 02/21/08 Page 1 of 3
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

2

Tham Thi Mai (“Defendant”) opposes Plaintiff’s motion, and countermoves to vacate all scheduled dates to permit further discovery.

Plaintiff instituted this adversary proceeding on March 22,

2006, against Defendant, who is the ex-wife of Debtor Chung Xay Luu

(“Debtor”). Plaintiff seeks to avoid allegedly fraudulent transfers

of real and personal property from Debtor to Defendant, and to sell

Debtor’s share of the real estate for the benefit of Debtor’s

bankruptcy estate. (See Pl.’s Compl. ¶¶ 17-49.) The action was

referenced to the bankruptcy court, which prescribed in a status order

that all discovery would be complete by October 31, 2006, and that the

final date for filing dispositive motions was November 28, 2006. On

March 15, 2007, the reference to the bankruptcy court was withdrawn,

and on May 1, 2007, an order issued setting trial to commence on

October 10, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. This trial date was reaffirmed in the

Final Pretrial Order issued August 14, 2007. On October 2, 2007,

trial was rescheduled for April 29, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. “[d]ue to

congestion in the court’s trial calendar.”

Plaintiff argues he should be granted the relief he requests

since he seeks to recover and sell real estate that Debtor transferred

to Defendant, and due to “the well publicized dramatic decrease in

real estate values in the Suisun/Sacramento area, time is of the

essence in adjudicating Plaintiff’s claims.” (Pl.’s Mot. at 2:5-7.) 

Plaintiff contends that extending the law and motion deadline to allow

him to file a motion for summary judgment, or advancing the trial

date, or reinstating the reference to bankruptcy court will result in

a speedier resolution of this action, thus permitting him to sell the

real estate for a greater sum. (Id. at 3:3-13.)

///

Case 2:06-cv-02657-GEB -KJM Document 82 Filed 02/21/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

However, neither party has satisfied the “manifest

injustice” standard required to be met before modification of the

Final Pretrial Order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(e). Nor

is Defendant’s argument persuasive that “give[n] the fact that minimal

amount of discovery has been undertaken by [the parties], justice and

due process require that the . . . Scheduling Order and the Pre-Trial

Order . . . be vacated and that new dates be set.” (Def.’s CounterMotion at 2:5-8.) Defendant contends that when this action was

removed from bankruptcy court, she “anticipated that this Court would

present and enter its own scheduling order in this case,” and that the

Court’s adoption of the scheduling order issued by the bankruptcy

court effectively “eliminate[d] deposition discovery (not yet

commenced) and many procedural benefits to both parties.” (Id. at

1:28-2:4.) Defendant has not satisfied the standard applicable before

any referenced deadlines could be changed, nor has Defendant

demonstrated the reasonableness of her expectation.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion and Defendant’s counter-motion

are denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 20, 2008

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-02657-GEB -KJM Document 82 Filed 02/21/08 Page 3 of 3