Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01910/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01910-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 423
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Withdrawal 28 USC 157
Cause of Action: 28:0157(b) Bankruptcy Claim to be tried in U.S. District Court

---

1

3:17-cv-01910-L-NLS

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

GXP CDMO, Inc.,,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADVANTAR LABORATORIES, Inc.,,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-01910-L-NLS

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

[Doc. 1] TO WITHDRAW THE 

REFERENCE

Plaintiff GXP CDMO, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) initiated this litigation by filing for 

Chapter 11 bankruptcy. (BP#: 14-08651-MM11 [Doc. 1.].) Subsequently, Plaintiff 

initiated an adversary proceeding against Defendant Advantar Laboratories, Inc., 

(“Defendant”). (AP#: 16-90110-MM [Doc. 1].) Plaintiff now moves to withdraw the 

reference and have all pretrial matters heard by the District Court. (Mot. [Doc. 1].) In 

support of its motion, Plaintiff cites 28 U.S.C. § 157 (e) and contends that the Court must 

grant its motion in full because it has requested a jury trial and does not consent to the 

Bankruptcy Court conducting the jury trial.1

 

1 Plaintiff also argued that the Court should grant its motion because the Bankruptcy Court is inclined to 

permissively abstain from the case and thereby dismiss it. This argument is moot in light of the 

Bankruptcy Court’s subsequent decision to not permissively abstain. (AP#: 16-90110-MM [Docs. 107, 

109].) 

Case 3:17-cv-01910-L-NLS Document 3 Filed 02/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:17-cv-01910-L-NLS

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

Plaintiff is correct to assert that 28 U.S.C. § 157 (e) and the Seventh Amendment 

to the U.S. Constitution grant it the right to a jury trial conducted by an Article III Judge. 

However, it does not follow that all pretrial matters should immediately be assigned to 

the District Court. In re Healthcentral.com, 504 F.3d 775 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[A] Seventh 

Amendment jury trial right does not mean the bankruptcy court must instantly give up 

jurisdiction and that the case must be transferred to the district Court.”) Rather, concerns 

of judicial economy and efficiency often require that the Bankruptcy Court retain pretrial 

jurisdiction. Id. This is especially true in situations such as the present where the 

Bankruptcy Court, having ruled on multiple contested pretrial motions, has substantial 

preexisting familiarity with the facts and the law of this case. Accordingly, the Court 

DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw the reference. This denial is without prejudice to 

Plaintiff refiling a motion to withdraw the reference in the event this case proceeds to 

trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2018

CC: The Honorable Margaret M. Mann

Case 3:17-cv-01910-L-NLS Document 3 Filed 02/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2