Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02657/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02657-3/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 On February 7, 2007, the Court issued an Order in which

it required the parties to address the applicability of the newly

(continued...)

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 January 25, 2007, an Order issued denying Defendant’s

motion to withdraw reference to the United States Bankruptcy Court for

the Eastern District of California. 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 January 25, 2007 Order.1 

Case 2:06-cv-02657-GEB -KJM Document 18 Filed 03/15/07 Page 1 of 4
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(...continued)

cited authority and indicated that because of that authority the

motion should be reconsidered sua sponte. Since neither party

has objected to treating Plaintiff’s motion as a request for

reconsideration, it is so treated. (Feb. 7, 2007 Order at 2:25-

27, n.1, 2:7-8.)

2

Defendant cites authority in its motion 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), arguing that under this decision Defendant is

entitled to a jury trial on all issues involved in the bankruptcy

adversary proceeding since they concern fraudulent transfer claims,

and the Supreme Court has held that “fraudulent transfer actions are

the assertion of private rights that more nearly resemble state-law

contract claims and are not core proceedings.” (Mot. at 3:2, 22-23.) 

Further, Defendant cites a case from this district involving

fraudulent conveyances where the court determined that the defendant

had the right to a jury trial, and withdrew the reference since

defendant did not consent to holding the jury trial in the Bankruptcy

Court. (Id. at 4; Index of Bankruptcy Exhibits, Ex. D.) 

Plaintiff does not dispute the applicability of

Granfinanciera, but argues that the reference should not be withdrawn

because Defendant expressly consented to the bankruptcy judge

conducting a jury trial. (Opp’n at 5:11-14, 6:5-9.) Plaintiff argues

Defendant’s consent is evinced where “[i]n [p]aragraph 1 of

Defendant’s Answer . . . Defendant admitted Plaintiff’s contention

[that the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§

1334, 151 and 157] in its entirety, without reservation.” (Id. at

6:5-8.)

Case 2:06-cv-02657-GEB -KJM Document 18 Filed 03/15/07 Page 2 of 4
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

Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(e),

[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 if specifically designated to

exercise such jurisdiction by the district court

and with the express consent of all the parties. 

28 U.S.C. § 157(e) (emphasis added). Defendant counters that she has

“not consent[ed] to the Bankruptcy Judge conducting [a] jury trial in

this adversary proceeding.” (Mot. at 3:3-4.) Further, Defendant

argues that she “timely claimed her right to a jury trial in [her

Answer].” (Reply at 7:15-17; see Def.’s Answer ¶ 3, (“Defendant . . .

affirmatively alleges, in view of this answer and request for jury

trial, the above-entitled Court no longer has jurisdiction in this

matter [and] [j]urisdiction is subject to 28 U.S.C. [§] 157(d) and 28

U.S.C. [§] 157(e).”).)

Defendant has not consented to the bankruptcy court

conducting a jury trial in the adversary proceeding. “Withdrawal of

the reference is [] required . . . where defendant who is entitled to

a jury trial does not consent to the holding of such trial in the

Bankruptcy Court.” Lara v. Casimiro, 2006 WL 1581897, at *4 (E.D.

Cal. June 6, 2006) (citation omitted). Accordingly, the reference to

the United States Bankruptcy Court is withdrawn. 

Further, a status hearing is scheduled to commence at 9:00

am on May 7, 2007, so that trial could be scheduled and it could be

decided whether any portion of a scheduling order issued in the

bankruptcy proceeding should be modified. A joint status report shall

be filed no later than fourteen (14) days before the hearing in which 

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-02657-GEB -KJM Document 18 Filed 03/15/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

the parties are to address the status of this action and when a final

pretrial conference and trial should be scheduled. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 14, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-02657-GEB -KJM Document 18 Filed 03/15/07 Page 4 of 4