Irving H. Picard v. Sage Associates
- John Keenan
- 1:20-cv-10057
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Irving H. Picard v. Sage Associates, Judge Nathan requested a filing on whether the bankruptcy reference must be withdrawn; the court did not decide the motion.
The order affects Plaintiff Irving H. Picard and the defendants, including Sage Associates, by requiring Picard to address a newly raised issue concerning withdrawal of the bankruptcy reference.
What happened
In Irving H. Picard v. Sage Associates, the defendants asked the district court to withdraw the bankruptcy reference, which would move the proceeding out of the bankruptcy court’s authority.
The defendants raised for the first time in their reply whether federal law required withdrawal because resolving the proceeding might require substantial consideration of federal laws outside the Bankruptcy Code. The court invited Picard to address only that issue in a filing of up to 10 pages, or to state that he would rely on his earlier opposition.
Judge Alison J. Nathan ordered Picard to file the response or letter by January 25, 2021. The order did not grant or deny the motion to withdraw the bankruptcy reference.
The detailed version
- Irving H. Picard v. Sage Associates · No. 1:20-cv-10057
- John Keenan
- Jan. 13, 2021
Background
Defendants filed a fully briefed motion to withdraw the bankruptcy reference. Withdrawal of the reference would address whether this proceeding should remain under the bankruptcy court’s authority or be handled by the district court.
Issue Identified by the Court
In their reply brief, Defendants raised for the first time whether withdrawal was mandatory under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a). The relevant question was whether resolving the proceeding required “substantial and material consideration of non-Bankruptcy Code federal statutes.” The order cited In re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc., 922 F.2d 984, 995 (2d Cir. 1990).
Court’s Action
Judge Alison J. Nathan invited Plaintiff to file a sur-reply—a later filing responding to arguments raised in a reply brief—addressing only whether substantial and material consideration of non-Bankruptcy Code federal statutes was necessary. The sur-reply could not exceed 10 pages. Alternatively, Plaintiff could file a letter stating that he intended to rely only on his opposition brief. The deadline was January 25, 2021.
The order did not decide whether withdrawal was mandatory and did not grant or deny Defendants’ motion to withdraw the bankruptcy reference.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.