TRANSCONTINENTAL REFRIGERATED LINES, INC., by LAWRENCE V. YOUNG, ESQ., liquidating agent, Plaintiff,
NEW PRIME, INC., et al., Defendants.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER, Chief District Judge.
Presently before the court is the motion (Doc. 1) to withdraw the reference to the bankruptcy court of the above-captioned adversary proceeding for jury trial in the district court, filed by plaintiff debtor Transcontinental Refrigerated Lines, Inc., ("Transcontinental"), by and through its liquidating agent, Lawrence Young, Esq., on August 15, 2013. For the reasons that follow, the court will grant the motion and accept jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).
The bankruptcy court confirmed the First Amended Plan of Reorganization of Official Unsecured Creditors' Committee of Transcontinental ("First Amended Plan") on November 16, 2009. In re Transcontinental, No. 5:08-bk-50578, Doc. 354. The First Amended Plan appointed Lawrence V. Young, Esquire, ("Young") as liquidating agent and vested him with control of all property of the estate and assets of Transcontinental. See id. The plan also conferred upon Young the authority to assert and enforce "[a]ll causes of action under Chapter 5 of the Bankruptcy Code, all Claims against third parties, and all other causes of action and rights belonging to or in favor of [Transcontinental]." Id . On February 26, 2010, Transcontinental, through Young, commenced this adversary proceeding in order to liquidate claims against defendants New Prime Inc.; Stephen P. Hrobuchak; Janis Hrobuchak; Nicole Hrobuchak; Stephen Hrobuchak; David Hrobuchak; Lily Lake Family Trust; S&M Leasing, Inc.; Cherry Marine, LLC; Kevin Davis; John Doe; Eric Kalnis; James Duggan; Handler, Thayer & Duggan; and Handler Thayer LLP. See In re Transcontinental, No. 5:10-ap-0092, Doc. 1. In response to the Rule 12 motion of several defendants, Transcontinental filed an amended complaint on September 24, 2010. Id . at Doc. 55.
On June 12, 2012, the bankruptcy court conducted a scheduling conference with the parties. Id . at Doc. 226. During that conference, before discussion of any scheduling matters, defendant New Prime Inc. ("New Prime") suggested that the bankruptcy court might be divested of subject matter jurisdiction to hear certain of Transcontinental's claims as a result of the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Stern v. Marshall , 131 S.Ct. 2594 (2011). The bankruptcy court directed New Prime to brief its subject matter jurisdiction concerns, and when New Prime failed to file a motion or brief, the bankruptcy court issued an order directing all of the parties to brief the issue within twenty-one days. In re Transcontinental, No. 5:10-ap-0092, Doc. 237. The parties submitted timely briefs, and the court held oral argument on the limited issue of jurisdiction on October 11, 2012.
On June 10, 2013, the bankruptcy court issued an opinion and order dismissing Transcontinental's non-core claims-Counts I, II, and X of its first amended complaint-for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id . at Docs. 243-44. Transcontinental timely transferred its non-core state law claims to the Court of Common Pleas for Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania, and as a result, only its fraudulent transfer claims pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 548 remained pending in the adversary proceeding before the bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy court further held that, pursuant to Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg , 492 U.S. 33 (1989), the Section 548 claims were within its jurisdiction, but observed that it could not try the claims unless the parties waived their right to a jury trial or consented to the bankruptcy court conducting the trial. In re Transcontinental, No. 5:10-ap-0092, Doc. 243 at 5, 7 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 157(d)). The court subsequently conducted a telephonic conference call with the parties, during which all defendants refused to waive their jury trial rights and objected to a jury trial before the bankruptcy court.
(Doc. 1 at ¶ 15).
On August 13, 2013, less than a month after the defendants refused to submit to jurisdiction before the bankruptcy court as to the § 548 claims, Transcontinental filed a motion to withdraw the reference and a supporting brief in the adversary proceeding. See In re Transcontinental, No. 5:10-ap-0092, Docs. 255-56. The motion was transmitted to this court on August 15, 2013. (Doc. 1). On September 25, 2013, having received no opposition papers from the defendants, the court ordered responsive submissions to be filed no later than October 2, 2013. (Doc. 3). On October 1, 2013, New Prime filed responsive papers (Doc. 4) contending that Transcontinental's motion was untimely and must be denied. The remaining defendants subsequently filed notices (Docs. 5, 7-8) indicating their concurrence with New Prime's position and incorporating New Prime's argument as their own. Transcontinental did not file a reply brief.
II. Standard of Review
Section 157(d) of the Judicial Code addresses both mandatory and permissive withdrawal of a district court's reference of a matter to the bankruptcy court:
The district court may withdraw, in whole or in part, any case or proceeding referred under this section, on its own motion or on timely motion of any party, for cause show. The district court shall, on timely motion of a party, so withdraw a proceeding if the court determines that resolution of the proceeding requires consideration of both title 11 and other laws of the United States regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce.
28 U.S.C. § 157(d). The Code further provides that when the right to a jury trial applies to a proceeding over which the bankruptcy judge may have jurisdiction, such jurisdiction is contingent on a designation to exercise the same by the district court and requires "the express consent of all the parties." Id . § 157(e).
The Third Circuit has articulated several factors for district courts to review in considering whether to permissively withdraw a reference. In In re Pruitt , 910 F.2d 1160 (3d Cir. 1990), the appellate court explained that district courts making a withdrawal determination should consider four factors: "the goals of promoting uniformity in bankruptcy administration, reducing forum shopping and confusion, fostering the economical use of the debtors' and creditors' resources, ... and expediting the bankruptcy process." Id . at 1168 (quoting Holland Am. Ins. Co. v. Succession of Roy , 777 F.2d 992, 999 (5th Cir. 1985)). The panel observed that the timing of the withdrawal request may also be a relevant consideration. Id . at 1168 (quoting 1 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 3.01[e]). That a bankruptcy court cannot conduct a jury trial in a particular matter may also constitute cause for permissive withdrawal. E.g. Uni Marts, LLC v. NRC Realty Advisors, LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. ...