Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01359/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01359-1/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

---

NO. C 10-01359 RS

ORDER

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

For the Northern District of California 

*E-Filed 06/15/2010* 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

ANNA VERTKIN, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

JUDGE ALAN JAROSLKOVSKY, et al., 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/

No. C 10-01359 RS 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

WITHDRAW REFERENCE 

I. INTRODUCTION 

At issue is plaintiff Anna Vertkin’s motion to withdraw the reference to the bankruptcy court 

in an on-going bankruptcy matter. Because this motion is appropriate for resolution without oral 

argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the hearing scheduled for June 17, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. 

is vacated. After considering all papers and supporting declarations filed by the parties and the 

entire record herein, it is clear that this case is appropriately before the bankruptcy court in this 

district. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion must be denied. Ms. Vertkin has also filed motions to 

strike and for sanctions. In light of the disposition of the withdrawal motion, these two motions are 

denied as moot. 

II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 

Case 3:10-cv-01359-RS Document 46 Filed 06/15/10 Page 1 of 3
NO. C 10-01359 RS 

ORDER

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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

 Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over Title 11 bankruptcy matters. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1334(a). Bankruptcy judges, however, have the statutory authority to hear and determine “all 

cases under Title 11 and all core proceedings arising under Title 11, or arising in a case under Title 

11, referred [by the district court], and may enter appropriate orders and judgments . . . .” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 157(b)(1). See also In re Cinematronics, Inc., 916 F.2d 1444, 1449-50 (9th Cir. 1990). “In 

general, a ‘core proceeding’ in bankruptcy is one that ‘invokes a substantive right provided by title 

11 or . . . [is] a proceeding that, by its nature, could arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case.’” 

In re Gruntz, 202 F.3d 1074, 1081 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing In re Wood, 825 F.2d 90, 97 (5th Cir. 

1987)). Non-core proceedings are those that are “not integral to the restructuring of debtor-creditor 

relations and [do] not involve[] a cause of action arising under title 11.” Id. 

As Ms. Vertkin points out, 28 U.S.C. §157(d) provides a mechanism under which a 

bankruptcy matter can be transferred back to the district court. Such a transfer occurs where the 

district court “withdraws” its reference. A litigant, like Vertkin, may move for such a withdrawal or 

the district court may do so on its own motion. 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). In either case, a reference is 

withdrawn only in “the exercise of the district court’s discretion ‘for cause shown.’” Security 

Farms v. Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, 124 F.3d 999, 

1008 (9th Cir. 1997). When determining whether “cause” exists, the district court considers the 

“efficient use of judicial resources, delay and costs to the parties, uniformity of bankruptcy 

administration, the prevention of forum shopping, and other related factors.” Id. Moreover, the 

party seeking withdrawal carries the burden of persuasion. See, e.g., In re Homeland Stores, Inc., 

204 B.R. 427, 430 (D. Del. 1997). 

III. DISCUSSION 

 Here, it seems that Ms. Vertkin filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy on October 16, 2008. She has 

unsuccessfully attempted to withdraw the reference in this case on one other occasion. Apparently, 

Ms. Vertkin filed the allegations that undergird the instant withdrawal motion on February 22, 2010. 

On April 7, 2010, Judge Newsome made a finding that these new allegations, in their entirety, 

constituted “core” matters within the overarching 2008 bankruptcy action. 

Case 3:10-cv-01359-RS Document 46 Filed 06/15/10 Page 2 of 3
NO. C 10-01359 RS 

ORDER

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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

Consideration of the Security Farms factors reflects that withdrawal of the reference would 

be ill-advised and inappropriate here. Withdrawal would add unnecessary and burdensome delay 

for all parties and would undermine the uniform administration of bankruptcy proceedings. As the 

case commenced several years ago before a bankruptcy judge, transfer would also entail some 

duplication or even waste of judicial resources. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for withdrawal of 

the reference must be denied and the pending motion to strike and motion for sanctions are denied 

as moot. This Order does not affect the related case, No. C 10-0775 RS, and defendant Wells 

Fargo’s motion to dismiss filed in that case (and any opposition thereto) will be duly considered. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 06/15/2010 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:10-cv-01359-RS Document 46 Filed 06/15/10 Page 3 of 3