1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHRYSLER LLC, a Delaware limited

liability company, 

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Case No. 08-14592

HONORABLE SEAN F. COX

v. United States District Court

GETRAG TRANSMISSION

MANUFACTURING, LLC, a Delaware

limited liability company, et al.,

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. 

___________________________________/

ORDER REFERRING PROCEEDINGS TO BANKRUPTCY COURT

On November 19, 2008, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs Getrag Transmission

Manufacturing LLC (“Getrag LLC”) filed a “Notice of Bankruptcy and Request for Referral to

Bankruptcy Court” [Doc. No. 10](“the Notice”), wherein they state that Getrag LLC has filed a

voluntary petition for relief under Title 11, Chapter 11 of the United States Code in the United

States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. 

The Notice indicates that the Chapter 11 case is being administered under Case No. 08-

68112 and is currently pending before the Honorable Marci B. McIvor in the United States

Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The Notice further indicates that this

proceeding “is core to the Bankruptcy Case, and is subject to mandatory referral to the United

States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) and

L.R. 83.50(a)(1)” and requests that this Court refer this proceeding to the Bankruptcy Court. 

2:08-cv-14592-SFC-PJK Doc # 32 Filed 03/23/09 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 720
2

On November 25, 2008, this Court issued an “Order to Show Cause” [Doc. No. 13],

requiring Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Chrysler LLC (“Chrysler”) to show cause, in writing, why

this proceeding should not be referred to the Bankruptcy Court. 

Chrysler responded to the Court’s Show Cause Order on December 12, 2008, by filing its

“Response to Order to Show Cause and Brief in Support of Motion to Abstain and Remand”

(“the Motion”) [Doc. No. 12]. In their Motion, Chrysler argues these proceedings should be

remanded to the Oakland County, Michigan, Circuit Court, and raises four primary arguments

why this Court should not refer proceedings to the Bankruptcy Court: 1) lack of subject matter

jurisdiction; 2) mandatory abstention under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2); 3) discretionary abstention

under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1); and 4) equitable remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b). Also

currently pending before the Court is Chrysler’s “Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint”

[Doc. No. 11]. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(e)(2), this Court declines to hold oral argument on

these motions. 

Local Rule 83.50(a) of the Eastern District of Michigan, regarding matters referred to the

Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, states as follows: 

(1) Unless withdrawn by a district judge, all cases under Title 11 of the United

States Code and any or all proceedings arising under Title 11 or arising in or

related to a case under Title 11 are referred to bankruptcy judges. The court

intends to give bankruptcy judges the broadest possible authority to administer

cases and proceedings properly within their jurisdiction. 

(2) Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), bankruptcy judges will hear and determine all

cases under Title 11 and all core proceedings (including those listed in 28 U.S.C.

§ 157(b)(2)) arising under Title 11, or arising in or related to a case under Title

11, and will enter appropriate orders and judgments, subject to review under 28

U.S.C. § 158. 

(3) Bankruptcy judges will hear all the non core proceedings related to a case

2:08-cv-14592-SFC-PJK Doc # 32 Filed 03/23/09 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 721
3

under Title 11. 

(A) By Consent. With the parties’ express consent, bankruptcy judges

may conduct hearings and enter appropriate orders or judgments in the

proceeding, subject only to review under 28 U.S.C. § 158. 

(B) Absent Consent. Absent consent of the parties, bankruptcy judges

will conduct hearings and file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of

law and a proposed order or judgment with the bankruptcy clerk. 

Bankruptcy judges may also file recommendations for expedited review. 

The bankruptcy clerk will immediate serve copies on all parties by mail

and enter the date of mailing on the docket. Objections to a bankruptcy

judge’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law must be filed as

required by Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9033(b) and (c).

 E.D.Mich. L.R. 83.50(a) (emphasis added). 

The Court has considered Chrysler’s argument that this Court may decide the merits of

Chrysler’s pending Motion. (See Br. of Plaintiff, Doc. No. 18, p.1, fn.1). While Chrysler has

cited numerous cases which give this Court the discretion to decide these issues, none of these

cases require that this Court must decide the issues Chrysler raises. Indeed, the Court notes that

the Bankruptcy Court may entertain each and every one of Chrysler’s arguments currently being

raised. See, e.g., Sutton v. St. Jude Med. S.C., Inc., 419 F.3d 568 (6th Cir.2005)(Bankruptcy

Court may determine questions of jurisdiction); Navon v. Mariculture Prods., Ltd., 395 B.R. 818

(D.Conn.2008)(Bankruptcy Court may determine questions of “abstention” or “remand” to state

courts); In re Talons Holdings, 221 B.R. 214 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1998)(Bankruptcy Court may

determine questions of equitable remand). 

Given Local Rule 83.50(a)(1)’s intent to give bankruptcy judges “the broadest possible

authority to administer cases and proceedings,” this Court declines to exercise its concurrent

power to determine the issues raised by Chrysler in their Motion. Chrysler is free to raise any or

all of these issues before the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. 

2:08-cv-14592-SFC-PJK Doc # 32 Filed 03/23/09 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 722
4

Accordingly, this Court GRANTS Getrag LLC’s “Request for Referral to Bankruptcy Court”

[Doc. No. 10], and REFERS these proceedings to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the

Eastern District of Michigan. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: March 23, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on

March 23, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Jennifer Hernandez 

Case Manager

2:08-cv-14592-SFC-PJK Doc # 32 Filed 03/23/09 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 723