FORD v. Quantum3 GROUP, LLC, CV 115-031. (2015)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20150504d90
Visitors: 18
Filed: Apr. 30, 2015
Latest Update: Apr. 30, 2015
Summary: ORDER J. RANDAL HALL , District Judge . After a careful, de novo review, the Court concurs with the Bankruptcy Judge's Report and Recommendation (doc. 1-3) that the Court withdraw the reference "for cause" under the permissive withdrawal provisions of 28 U.S.C. 157(d), to which objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the portion of the Bankruptcy Judge's Report and Recommendation finding permissive withdrawal appropriate as its opinion and GRANTS the withdrawal of
Summary: ORDER J. RANDAL HALL , District Judge . After a careful, de novo review, the Court concurs with the Bankruptcy Judge's Report and Recommendation (doc. 1-3) that the Court withdraw the reference "for cause" under the permissive withdrawal provisions of 28 U.S.C. 157(d), to which objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the portion of the Bankruptcy Judge's Report and Recommendation finding permissive withdrawal appropriate as its opinion and GRANTS the withdrawal of t..
More
ORDER
J. RANDAL HALL, District Judge.
After a careful, de novo review, the Court concurs with the Bankruptcy Judge's Report and Recommendation (doc. 1-3) that the Court withdraw the reference "for cause" under the permissive withdrawal provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), to which objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the portion of the Bankruptcy Judge's Report and Recommendation finding permissive withdrawal appropriate as its opinion and GRANTS the withdrawal of the reference.1 The case is hereby WITHDRAWN from the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Georgia, and the Clerk is DIRECTED to assign this case as a civil action.
In light of this ruling, the Bankruptcy Judge's second Report and Recommendation (doc. 1-4) finding that Defendants' improperly removed this action directly to the Bankruptcy Court is DENIED AS MOOT.
FootNotes
1. The Court expresses no opinion as to the merits of mandatory withdrawal.
Source: Leagle
