In Re: Garden Fresh Restaurants, LLC

District Court, S.D. California · 3:21-cv-01440 · 2022-02-10 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
On appeal: In Re: Leslie T. Gladstone v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (2023-11-15) — affirmed — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
Panel: Janis L. Sammartino (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T22:37Z · confidence high

Defendants moved to withdraw the reference of a bankruptcy adversary proceeding to the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). The court denied the motion as moot because the bankruptcy court had already dismissed the underlying adversary proceeding with prejudice.

What the court decided	The model
Defendants' Motion to Withdraw the Reference is denied as moot. “Here, because the Bankruptcy Court has dismissed the Adversary Proceeding, Defendants’ Motion for Withdrawal of Reference is DENIED AS MOOT.”	agree with court The court correctly applied the principle that a motion to withdraw a reference is moot if the underlying proceeding is resolved by the bankruptcy court while the motion is pending. The order recites that the Bankruptcy Court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice on January 14, 2022, and entered a proposed order on January 28, 2022, which occurred before the District Court's ruling on February 10, 2022. Therefore, there was no longer a pending proceeding to withdraw.

What the court decided

The model

Defendants' Motion to Withdraw the Reference is denied as moot.

“Here, because the Bankruptcy Court has dismissed the Adversary Proceeding, Defendants’ Motion for Withdrawal of Reference is DENIED AS MOOT.”

agree with court
The court correctly applied the principle that a motion to withdraw a reference is moot if the underlying proceeding is resolved by the bankruptcy court while the motion is pending. The order recites that the Bankruptcy Court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice on January 14, 2022, and entered a proposed order on January 28, 2022, which occurred before the District Court's ruling on February 10, 2022. Therefore, there was no longer a pending proceeding to withdraw.

The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the legal standard for withdrawal of reference, notes the intervening event (dismissal of the adversary proceeding), and applies the mootness doctrine supported by cited case law. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the status of the motion.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 In re GARDEN FRESH Case No.: 21-CV-1440 JLS (KSC) RESTAURANTS, LLC, 12 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ Debtor. 13 MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE REFERENCE AS MOOT 14 LESLIE T. GLADSTONE, ESQ., as 15 Chapter 7 Trustee of Garden Fresh (ECF No. 1) Restaurants, LLC, 16 Plaintiff, 17 v. 18 TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY 19 COMPANY OF AMERICA; and THE 20 TRAVELERS LLOYDS INSURANCE COMPANY, 21 Defendants. 22 23 24 Presently before the Court is Defendants Travelers Property Casualty Company of 25 America and The Travelers Lloyds Insurance Company’s Motion to Withdraw the 26 Reference (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff Leslie T. Gladstone instituted adversary proceeding No. 27 21-90043 (the “Adversary Proceeding”) in the Chapter 7 case of Garden Fresh Restaurants 28 LLC on June 7, 2021. See generally Gladstone v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., Case 1 No. 21-90043-LA (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 2021). Defendants moved pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2 § 157(d), Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 5011, and Local Civil Rule 7.1 for 3 withdrawal of the reference to this Court on August 13, 2021. ECF No. 1. 4 A party who believes that a proceeding pending in the bankruptcy court should 5 instead be litigated before the district court may move for withdrawal of that reference 6 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). Section 157(d) provides: 7 The district court may withdraw, in whole or in part, any case or proceeding referred under this section, on its own motion, or on 8 timely motion of any party for cause shown. The district court 9 shall, on timely motion of a party, so withdraw a proceeding if the court determines that resolution of the proceeding requires 10 consideration of both title 11 and other laws of the United States 11 regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce. 12 13 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). 14 In the underlying Adversary Proceeding, however, Defendants filed a motion to 15 dismiss Plaintiff’s first amended complaint on August 30, 2021. See Gladstone, Case No. 16 21-90043-LA, ECF No. 24. On January 14, 2022, Defendants notified this Court that the 17 Bankruptcy Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice. ECF No. 13. On 18 January 28, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court entered a proposed order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 19 § 157(c) and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9033 granting Defendants’ motion to 20 dismiss Plaintiff’s first amended complaint with prejudice. See Gladstone, Case No. 21- 21 90043-LA, ECF No. 51. 22 A bankruptcy court order dismissing an adversary proceeding moots a motion to 23 withdraw the reference pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157. In re Lear Corp., 418 B.R. 47, 48 24 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (dismissing a motion to withdraw the reference as moot where the 25 bankruptcy court had dismissed the underlying adversary proceeding while the motion was 26 pending); In re Eze, No. CV 17-11054-IT, 2017 WL 4212338, at *2 (D. Mass. July 6, 2017) 27 (same). 28 /// 1 Here, because the Bankruptcy Court has dismissed the Adversary Proceeding, 2 || Defendants’ Motion for Withdrawal of Reference is DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of 3 || the Court shall close the file. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: February 10, 2022 tt 6 pee Janis L. Sammartino 4 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28