Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02603/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02603-1/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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re: MOSCOWITZ & NIXDORF, LLP,

Debtor.

__________________________________/

JOHN T. KENDALL, Chapter 7 Trustee,

Plaintiff, No. C 07-2603 PJH

BK Adv. Case No. 06-4255 AN

v.

ORDER GRANTING

WITHDRAWAL

OF REFERENCE AND SETTING

CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE

ERIC M. NIXDORF,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

This matter is before the court following the bankruptcy court’s May 11, 2007 order

recommending withdrawal of the bankruptcy court’s reference under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d),

pursuant to Bankruptcy L.R. 5011-2(b). The court subsequently afforded the parties an

opportunity to file briefs addressing the issue, which they did. For the reasons that follow,

the court GRANTS withdrawal of the bankruptcy court’s reference pursuant to § 157(d).

Plaintiff John Kendall (“trustee”) is the chapter 7 trustee in a chapter 7 bankruptcy

case filed by debtor law firm, Moskowitz & Nixdorf LLP, 04-46921 RN. Defendant Eric

Nixdorf (“Nixdorf”), proceeding pro se, was debtor’s former managing partner, and is the

responsible individual for debtor in the chapter 7 bankruptcy case.

On November 20, 2006, the trustee filed an adversary proceeding, 06-4255 AN,

Case 4:07-cv-02603-PJH Document 7 Filed 08/08/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

against Nixdorf, which raises several claims under the Bankruptcy Code, including claims

to avoid preferential transfers and fraudulent conveyances in the amounts of $673,258.50

and $1,007,635.91, under Bankruptcy Code §§ 544, 547, and 548. Nixdorf, who did not file

a proof of claim in bankruptcy case no. 04-46921 RN, has asserted his right to a jury trial in

the adversary proceeding, and refuses to consent to a trial by the bankruptcy court.

In spite of the fact that the above claims likely constitute “core” proceedings in the

bankruptcy case, the United States Supreme Court has held that the Seventh Amendment

entitles a person who has not submitted a claim against a bankruptcy estate to a jury trial

when sued by a bankruptcy trustee seeking monetary relief in a fraudulent or preferential

transfer action. Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33, 40 n.3, 50 (1989)

(fraudulent transfer case); Langenkamp v. Culp, 498 U.S. 42, 44 (1990) (preferential

transfer case). However, if all parties consent and the district court designates the

bankruptcy court to do so, the bankruptcy court may conduct the jury trial. See § 157(e).

Both parties agree that Nixdorf has a right to a jury trial on the complaint filed in the

adversary proceeding. Because Nixdorf refuses to consent to a trial in the bankruptcy

court, the court GRANTS withdrawal of the bankruptcy court’s reference pursuant to §

157(d). 

The parties are ordered to appear for a case management conference in this case

on August 30, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, Federal Building, 450

Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California.

Counsel shall meet and confer as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) prior to the Case

Management Conference with respect to those subjects set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c). 

Not less than seven (7) calendar days before the conference, counsel shall file a joint

case management statement addressing each of the items listed in the "Standing Order

For All Judges of the Northern District -- Contents of Joint Case Management statement,"

which is attached to this order and can also be found on the court's website. A proposed

order is not necessary. Following the conference, the court will enter its own Case

Case 4:07-cv-02603-PJH Document 7 Filed 08/08/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Management and Pretrial Order. If any party is proceeding without counsel, separate

statements may be filed by each party. 

Each party shall appear personally or by counsel prepared to address all of the

matters referred to in this Order and with authority to enter stipulations and make

admissions pursuant to this Order. Any request to reschedule the date of the conference

shall be made in writing, and by stipulation if possible, at least ten (10) calendar days

before the date of the conference and must be based upon good cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 8, 2007

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-02603-PJH Document 7 Filed 08/08/07 Page 3 of 3