Source: https://casetext.com/case/am-media-inc-v-anderson-mgmt-servs-inc-in-re-anderson-news-llc
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 10:47:59+00:00

Document:
IN RE: ANDERSON NEWS, LLC, Debtor. AMERICAN MEDIA, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. ANDERSON MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC, et al., Defendants.
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
Referring to the type of claim recognized by Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011).
Defendants' Rule 9033 Objection is improper because the July 8, 2015 Order does not represent the Bankruptcy Court's proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law. (D.I. 1-2) The Bankruptcy Court neither styled the July 8, 2015 Order as such, nor did it submit the Order to this Court for review for final judgment under Fed. R. Bankr. P 9033(a). (Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9033(a)) This was procedurally appropriate because the Order -- which denied Defendants' request for summary judgment -- was not a final order for purposes of bankruptcy appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). See In re White Beauty View, Inc., 841 F.2d 524, 526 (3d Cir. 1988) (citing In re Smith, 735 F.2d 459, 461 (11th Cir. 1984)); In re Coram Healthcare Corp., 2007 WL 643325, at *1 (D. Del. Mar. 1, 2007).
Defendants' premise that the July 8, 2015 Order somehow creates a Stern conflict is misplaced. Stern addressed the Bankruptcy Court's authority to hear and enter final judgments on a specific subset of claims. See Stern, 131 S. Ct. at 2602; see also Executive Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison, 134 S. Ct. 2165, 2172-73 (2014) ("By definition, a Stern claim may not be adjudicated to final judgment by the bankruptcy court, as in a typical core proceeding."). Even if the Bankruptcy Court lacks constitutional authority to enter a final judgment on Count XVI of Plaintiffs' claim, there is no constitutional constraint preventing it from entering interlocutory orders, such as the July 8, 2015 Order, regarding that same claim. See Boyd v. King Par, LLC, 2011 WL 5509873, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 10, 2011) ("[E]ven if there is uncertainty regarding the bankruptcy court's ability to enter a final judgment . . . that does not deprive the bankruptcy court of the power to entertain all pre-trial proceedings, including summary judgment motions."); In re Trinsum Grp., Inc., 467 B.R. 734, 739 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2012) ("After Stern v. Marshall, the ability of bankruptcy judges to enter interlocutory orders in non-core proceedings, or in core proceedings as to which the bankruptcy court may not enter final orders or judgments consistent with Article III absent consent, has been reaffirmed by the courts . . . ."). For the same reason, Defendants' reliance on Gavin v. Tousignant (In re Ultimate Escapes Holdings, LLC), 2015 WL 1586644 (Bankr. D. Del. Feb. 5, 2015), is unavailing. (See D.I. 1 at 4 n.5) In that case, the order that the Bankruptcy Court recast as proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law was a post-trial final judgment -- clearly the type of decision subject to Stern implications. See Gavin, 2015 WL 1586644, at *1.
The Court finds no basis for Defendants' Rule 9033 Motion and it will be dismissed.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 157
 § 158
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.