The Withdraw of Adversary Proceedings in Ohio Under Firstenergy Solutions Corp.
The matter at hand was heard by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio after Bluestone Energy Sales Corp. filed a Motion to Withdrawal an Adversary Proceeding filed by FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.
Request a Free Bankruptcy Consultation:
Bluestone had a contract prior to the bankruptcy and FirstEnergy claimed that the Agreement was breached by failing to make a payment under the contract. FirstEnergy filed a Chapter 11 Voluntary Petition for Bankruptcy on March 31st, 2018. In December of the same year, FirstEnergy brought an adversary proceeding against Bluestone. One claim involved turnover of estate property under 11 USC 542 and one claim involved an alleged breach of contract. Bluestone moved to dismiss the claim however the motion to dismiss was denied. Bluestone then filed an answer but sought to have the adversary proceeding removed from the docket.
Bluestone argued that the issues raised were not core proceedings as contemplated by 28 U.S.C. §157. Secondly, Bluestone argued it was entitled to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
District courts are authorized by 28 U.S.C. 157(d) to withdraw part or all of a case or proceeding either sua sponte or upon the timely motion of any party for cause. This is generally a discretionary function of the court. In this case, no party alleged any facts that would require a withdrawal such as Title 11 or federal law considerations. As such, it was discretionary for the court to determine whether the withdraw the adversary proceeding. Given this landscape, the court endeavors to analyze whether good cause has been shown. In general, withdrawals should only be granted in a limited class of proceedings for which the moving party bears the burden of proof. Ultimately, the issue revolves around whether the proceeding is a “core proceeding” or not. This is also determined by the bankruptcy judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(3).
The court held that it was undisputed that the court had not ruled on whether the adversary proceeding was a core or non-core proceeding. The court noted that the adversary proceeding was in its early stages and should remain in the bankruptcy court as opposed to reverting to the trial court. Withdrawing the proceeding would cause delay and obstruction and not foster judicial economy. The motion to withdrawal the adversary proceeding was denied by the court and the proceeding was terminated and removed from the Court’s docket.
Chris Sawan holds a JD, MBA and is a CPA with a background that yields itself to some of the most complex legal challenges facing businesses, families, and individuals.
Dennis E. Sawan is licensed to practice law in the States of Florida and Ohio. His experience as a transactional attorney makes him a tremendous ally to have for all types of transactions.
Contact Us Now
This is an ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT. Sawan PLLC is a law firm with attorneys licensed in Michigan, Ohio and Florida. We assist clients filing bankruptcy. If you are considering bankruptcy, please call our offices. No attorney-client relationship is created by your use of this website. The information contained on this website is provided for general purposes only and does not apply to your specific factual circumstances in all cases. For us to better understand the particular facts unique to your case, call 419-469-5002 for a free consultation.
Trident Associates and Bad Faith Dismissals of Chapter 11 Petitions in the Sixth Circuit Trident Associates Limited Partnership (“Trident”) is a limited partnership in Michigan.
Taylor v. Deutsche Bank and Appeals of Automatic Stay Relief This case involves an appeal by Mr. Kenneth S. Taylor from a decision of the
The Withdraw of Adversary Proceedings in Ohio Under Firstenergy Solutions Corp. The matter at hand was heard by the United States District Court for the