Case Information
*1 Case 2:14-cv-01000-JAD Document 18 Filed 04/22/15 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA In re AFRODITI LEDSTROM, Case No.: 2:14-cv-1000-JAD Debtor, Bankr. No. 12-S-11672-MKN
YVETTE WEINSTEIN, Chapter 11 Trustee, et al., Bankr. Adv. No. 14-01018-MKN Plaintiffs, Order Denying Defendants’ Amended
vs. Motion for Withdrawal of the Reference to the Bankruptcy Court (#7) 1531 LVBS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, LV CABARET SOUTH, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, et al., Defendants.
Currently before me is defendant 1531 LVBS, LLC’s amended motion for withdrawal of the reference for adversary proceeding Case No. 14-01018-MKN to the Bankruptcy Court. [1] The motion is virtually identical to those previously denied in Case Nos. 14-cv-569 and 14-cv-900. [2] I denied those requests because it was not clear that the bankruptcy court had determined whether the proceedings are core or non-core. I incorporate the findings and reasoning of these matters by reference.
1531 LVBS acknowledges in its amended motion that “with each new complaint improperly filed [in the bankruptcy court, it] is required, by statute, to file a Motion to Withdraw the Reference alerting the Bankruptcy Court and, by extension, this Court to the procedural and jurisdictional errors lethal to the various plaintiffs and intervening plaintiff’s claims in this forum.” Doc. 7 at 3. I correspondingly note that there remains no evidence indicating that the bankruptcy court has made the determination whether the proceedings in this matter are core or non-core, that the bankruptcy court should have the authority to resolve this question in the first instance, and that, without this *2 Case 2:14-cv-01000-JAD Document 18 Filed 04/22/15 Page 2 of 2 answer, the factors considered for permissive withdrawal under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) and (e) weigh in favor of keeping this case before the bankruptcy court. [3] 1531 LVBS’s slightly modified arguments in its amended motion to withdraw do not persuade me that the reference should be withdrawn at this time. [4] Thus, I deny this amended motion to withdraw the reference without prejudice for the same reasons as articulated in Case Nos. 14-cv-569 and 14-cv-900.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Amended Motion for Withdrawal of the Reference (Doc. 7) is DENIED without prejudice.
Dated on this 22nd day of April 2015.
_______________________________ Jennifer A. Dorsey United States District Judge ______________ _______________ ___ _____________ __________ ________ ifer rrrrrrrrrrrrrrr A.AAAA DDDDDDDDDDooooooooroooooooooooooooooooooooooooo sey ed Stttatatattatatttatatattttatttttttttttttteeeeeeeeeeseseeee District JuJuJuJuJuJuJuJJJuJuJuJuJJuJuJuJuJJuuuuuuuuuudggdgdgdgdgdggdggdgdggdgggdggggggdggdggggggggggddddddd e
[1] Doc. 7. Aristotole Holding, LP and Pete the Greek, LLC responded to the amended motion on December 8, 2014, Doc. 10; intervenor plaintiffs OG Eliades, LLC, OG Eliades AD, LLC, OG 26 Eliades LLC / OG Eliades AD, LLC General Partnership responded on December 9, 2014. Doc. 10. Aristotle Holding, LP and Pete the Greek, LLC then joined in Doc. 11, Doc. 12, and supplemented their response. Doc. 13. 1531 LVBS and “Interested Party” LV Cabaret Smith filed a reply, which was docketed twice. Docs. 14, 15. These two parties also filed a notice on February 12, 2015. Doc. 17. 27 28
[2] I incorporate the factual background developed in these matters by reference.
[3] See 14-cv-569 Doc. 4; 14-cv-900 Doc. 7. 28
[4] See Doc. 7. 2