Diamond Resorts International, Inc. v. Austin, 3:18-cv-00795. (2018)
Court: District Court, M.D. Tennessee
Number: infdco20181024g06
Visitors: 6
Filed: Oct. 17, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 17, 2018
Summary: ORDER ALETA A. TRAUGER , District Judge . The Diamond Resorts movants/plaintiffs have filed a Motion to Withdraw the Reference of this adversary proceeding (Docket No. 1), to which the debtor/defendant, Sean Kingslow Austin, has filed a Response (Docket No. 3), and Diamond Resorts has filed a Reply (Docket No. 7). The Motion to Withdraw the Reference is hereby GRANTED. The dischargeability of any debt determined to be owed by Mr. Austin in the related district court action, Case No. 3:17-
Summary: ORDER ALETA A. TRAUGER , District Judge . The Diamond Resorts movants/plaintiffs have filed a Motion to Withdraw the Reference of this adversary proceeding (Docket No. 1), to which the debtor/defendant, Sean Kingslow Austin, has filed a Response (Docket No. 3), and Diamond Resorts has filed a Reply (Docket No. 7). The Motion to Withdraw the Reference is hereby GRANTED. The dischargeability of any debt determined to be owed by Mr. Austin in the related district court action, Case No. 3:17-c..
More
ORDER
ALETA A. TRAUGER, District Judge.
The Diamond Resorts movants/plaintiffs have filed a Motion to Withdraw the Reference of this adversary proceeding (Docket No. 1), to which the debtor/defendant, Sean Kingslow Austin, has filed a Response (Docket No. 3), and Diamond Resorts has filed a Reply (Docket No. 7).
The Motion to Withdraw the Reference is hereby GRANTED. The dischargeability of any debt determined to be owed by Mr. Austin in the related district court action, Case No. 3:17-cv-1124, will perforce be determined in that complex case that was filed in August 2017 against numerous defendants, only one of which is the debtor, Mr. Austin. The role and potential liability of Mr. Austin simply cannot be determined in an isolated action in the Bankruptcy Court. Therefore, despite the fact that this adversary action is a core proceeding, it is in the interest of judicial economy, costs to the parties, and avoidance of the risks of conflicting dispositions that the matters at issue in the adversary proceeding be determined in tandem with the pending district court action.
It is so ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
