Myers v. Malone et al, No. 8:2013cv00353 - Document 14 (D. Neb. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER that the Court thus concludes that the bankruptcy court was procedurally correct to provide the Court with findings and recommendations for de novo review. Absent any objection, therefore, the Court will review the bankruptcy court's findings and recommendations and rule on the defendant's OBJECTION 9 . Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (ADB)
Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA RICHARD D. MYERS, Chapter 7 Trustee of the Daniel M. Malone bankruptcy estate, 8:13-CV-353 Plaintiff, ORDER vs. JEANNE MALONE, Defendant. This matter is before the Court on its own motion, noting the Supreme Court's decision in Exec. Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison, 2014 WL 2560461 (U.S. June 9, 2014). The holding of that case, as the Court understands it, is that a "core" proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) that cannot be finally adjudicated by the bankruptcy court pursuant to Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), may proceed as non-core within the meaning of § 157(c), and the bankruptcy court may hear the proceeding and submit findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court for de novo review. Arkison, 2014 WL 2560461, at *7. The Court thus concludes that the bankruptcy court was procedurally correct to provide the Court with findings and recommendations for de novo review. Absent any objection, therefore, the Court will review the bankruptcy court's findings and recommendations and rule on the defendant's objection (filing 9).1 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 10th day of June, 2014. BY THE COURT: John M. Gerrard United States District Judge To be clear, the Court is not, at this time, rejecting the defendant's request to adduce additional evidence. See filing 10 at 3, 20. Rather, the Court will determine whether an additional hearing is appropriate when performing its de novo review. 1