Plaintiff's non-dischargeability action was dismissed for failure to file the pretrial order, and plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the dismissal, arguing excusable neglect under Bankruptcy Rule 9024. In finding no excusable neglect, the court noted that cumulative procedural and substantive deficiencies in the case were evidence of, at best, failure to attend to detail and, at worst, a cavalier attitude toward the court. Therefore, plaintiff's motion was denied with respect to its 11 U.S.C. § 523 cause of action. The court considered the problems with plaintiff's 11 U.S.C. § 727 action to be much more serious, noting that plaintiff's counsel had obtained the information in support of the claims against debtor by virtue of his previous role as trustee of debtor's estate. Counsel resigned as the trustee and filed plaintiff's complaint against debtor on the same day, which was also the last day for filing objections to discharge. The court found that acting as the trustee and representing a creditor of the estate was clearly a conflict of interest, and that the conflict was not cured by counsel's withdrawal as trustee. The court granted the motion to reinstate the § 727 cause of action, directed the US Trustee to take steps to ensure proper administration of the estate, and directed the chapter 7 trustee that had been appointed after plaintiff's counsel resigned to either schedule a pre-trial conference on the § 727 claim, or move to dismiss the adversary proceeding, within twenty days.

The district court found "cause" under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) to permissively withdraw the reference of a non-core adversary proceeding from the bankruptcy court. In so doing, the district court held that cause for permissive withdrawal of the reference is limited to a narrow set of circumstances, the existence of which is determined on the facts presented by each particular case, and withdrawal is generally appropriate when either judicial economy would be served or a party has a right to a jury trial. In the case before it, the non-debtor defendant had a seventh amendment right to a jury trial, which it had timely demanded, and it had not consented to the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction. Reference was therefore withdrawn.

The court determined that it had subject matter jurisdiction to consider a dispute between non-debtors that related to a chapter 11 plan confirmed more than five years prior to the dispute. However, the court concluded, based on the facts before it, that permissive abstention pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1) was appropriate. The court recommended to the district court that, in cases involving confirmed chapter 11 plans that are largely completed and resolution of the dispute will have little or no effect on the bankruptcy case, disputes between third parties should not be determined in the bankruptcy court and permissive abstention should be used to transfer such cases back to jurisdictions statutorily designated to handle them.

The district court considered a creditor's motion for change of venue of a bankruptcy case, en banc. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court's practice of automatically transmitting change of venue cases to the district court for disposition was not in keeping with the spirit and interpretation of various statutes, bankruptcy rules, and Local Rule B-106. The court resolved to amend Rule B-106 to provide that motions for change of venue in bankruptcy cases would thereafter be heard initially by the bankruptcy court, which would then provide a report and recommendation on the motion to the district court. In the case before it, the district court granted the motion to change venue in order to avoid further delay.