Free Order on Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01461-KAJ Document 6 Filed 07/01/2005 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN RE: ) Chapter 11
) Bankruptcy Case No. 02-13283 (PJW)
GRUPPO ANTICO, INC. f/k/a TREND )
HOLDINGS, INC., et al., )
I
Debtors. )
————————-—— j
ANTICO VACCA TECHNOLOGIES, )
INC. f/k/a TREND TECHNOLOGIES, ) Adversary Proceeding No. 04-53358
INC., )
Plaintiff, )
v. )
) Civil Action No. 04-1461-KAJ
ETCHED MEDIA CORPORATION )
I
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM ORDER
This is a bankruptcy case. Before me is Etched Media Corporation's
("Defendant") motion to withdraw the reference (Docket Item ["D.l."] 2; the "Motion").
For the reasons that follow, the Motion is granted}
On April 29, 2004, Trend Technologies, Inc. ("Plaintift"’) commenced this action
by filing a Complaint to avoid and recover preferential transfers pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
§§ 547, 550. (D.I. 1, Ex. B at 3-4.) On July 23, 2004, Defendant filed its Answer, in
which it demanded a jury trial and, pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7087, a transfer of the
adversary proceeding to a district in California. (D.I. 1, Ex. C at 7-8.) On August 5,
2004, Defendant filed a motion to transfer adversary proceeding, or, in the alternative,
to withdraw reference. (D.I. 1.) On October 21, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court entered an
‘The Motion as filed with the Bankruptcy Court also asked for reconsideration of
that court's decision on a motion to transfer. As the Bankruptcy Court no longer has
jurisdiction, that aspect of the Motion is denied as moot.

Case 1:04-cv-01461-KAJ Document 6 Filed 07/O1/2005 Page 2 of 3
order denying Defendant’s motion to transfer venue. (D.l. 2 at 2.) On November 1,
2004, the present Motion was filed. (D.|. 2.)
In the Court below, Defendant argued that the proceeding should be transferred
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on the grounds
that the interests of the parties are better served because most of the witnesses and
evidence is located there. (D.I. 1 at 1-2.) Alternatively, Defendant argued, the reference
should be withdrawn from the Bankruptcy Court because the asserted claims are
attended by a right to a jury trial. (ld. at 2.)
Plaintiff argued that (1) assertion of the right to a jury trial is insufficient to show
that statutory cause exists to withdraw the reference, (2) Defendant would have another
opportunity to forum shop by renewing its motion to transfer in the District Court, and (3)
withdrawal at this early stage of the proceedings would be a waste of judicial resources.
(D.I. 19 at 13-17.)" Alternatively, if grounds for withdrawal exist, Plaintiff argued that, in
the interest ofjudicial economy, a decision on withdrawal should be deferred until the
case is ready for trial. (ld. at 17-18.)
In determining whether to grant or deny a motion to withdraw the reference, "this
Court will consider whether withdrawal would serve judicial economy, such as 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." NDEP Corp. V. Hand!-lt, Inc. (In re NDEP
Corp.), 203 BR. 905, 913 (D. Del. 1996). "Another factor sometimes considered by
2Docket item 19 refers to an entry in the Bankruptcy Court’s record.
2

Case 1:04-cv-01461-KAJ Document 6 Filed 07/O1/2005 Page 3 of 3
courts analyzing whether withdrawal is appropriate is whether the parties have
requested a jury triaI." Id. at 908 (internal quotations omitted). Here, although the
Plaintiff asserts that all pretrial matters in this proceeding should be remanded to the
Bankruptcy Court for reasons ofjudicial economy, or the Motion should be deferred for
reasons of judicial economy, the Plaintiff provides no explanation in support of those
contentions. Further, returning the matter to the Bankruptcy Court would not promote
uniformity in the bankruptcy administration, reduce forum shopping, foster the
economical use of the parties resources, or expedite the bankruptcy process. On the
contrary, it appears that considerations ofjudicial economy favor withdrawal. Because
it is essentially conceded that Defendants are entitled to a jury trial, it will likely be more
efficient for this court to manage the case through the pretrial process. Ci NDEP, 203
B.R. at 913 (quoting Gumport v. Growth Fin. Corp. (ln re Transcon Lines), 121 B.R.
837, 838 (C.D. Cal. 1990)) ("Due to the fact that a District Court Judge must eventually
preside over the jury trial in this matter, it would constitute a tremendous waste of
judicial resources to permit the bankruptcy judge to continue to maintain jurisdiction
over the issues presented in this litigation?).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to withdraw
reference (D.l. 2) is GRANTED and the reference of the above Adversary Proceeding
Number 04-53358 is WITHDRAWN. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's
motion for reconsideration of order dated October 21, 2004, deny' . : - endant's
motion to transfer is DENIED as moot.
July 1, 2005 ~*`
Wilmington, Delaware I D STAT T JUDGE
3