DeLaPava-Garcia v. CTCE Federal Credit Union

1. This adversary complaint requests a determination the Plaintiffs effectively rescinded the reaffirmation
agreement in question pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §524(c)(2)(A) and that the debt is issue was discharged pursuant
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
In re:
MEL GARCIA and 	: 	Case No. 03-25038T
CRISTINA DELAPAVA-GARCIA,
Debtor(s) 	:
--------------------------------------------------------
:
MEL GARCIA and
CRISTINA DELAPAVA-GARCIA, 	:
Plaintiff(s)
:
v. 	Adv. No. 05-2051
:
CTCE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, 	:
Defendant(s)
:
ORDER
AND NOW, this 20th day of July, 2005, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s motion
requesting that we abstain from hearing this adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1334(c)(1)
and (2) is DENIED as the court finds that: (1) mandatory abstention is inappropriate under 28 U.S.C.
§1334(c)(2) because this is a core proceeding, Selinger v. Whiteman, (In re Midstate Mortgage
Investors, Inc.), 105 Fed. Appx. 420, 422 (3 rd Cir. 2004)(“mandatory abstention does not apply
where the proceeding is core”); LaRoche Ind., Inc. v. Orica Notrogen LLC (In re LaRoche Ind.,
Inc.), 312 B.R. 249, 253 (Bankr. D. Del. 2004); Koken v. Reliance Insurance Co. (In re Reliance
Group Holdings, Inc.), 273 B.R. 374, 391 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2002); 1 and (2) discretionary abstention
Case 05-02051-ref Doc 18 Filed 07/20/05 Entered 07/20/05 14:33:16 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 2

to 11 U.S.C. §727. As both of these issues “invoke substantive rights provided under Title 11 and are
proceedings, that by their nature, could arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case,” Reliance Group, 273
B.R. at 392, this proceeding is a core proceeding to which mandatory abstention may not be applied.
2
is inappropriate under 11 U.S.C. §1334(c)(1) since: (a) this proceeding involves the fundamental
right of a debtor to a “fresh start” and a determination of whether the debt owed to Defendant was
discharged, issues which render the proceeding intricately intertwined with the bankruptcy
proceeding; and (b) state law issues do not predominate over bankruptcy issues in this proceeding.
See LaRoche Ind., 312 B.R. at 253.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a telephonic status conference shall be held
On: 	Thursday, August 4, 2005
At: 	11:30 a.m.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for Plaintiffs shall initiate the telephonic
status conference on August 4, 2005 at 11:30 a.m. by calling Chambers, with counsel for Defendant
also on the line, at (610) 320-5093.
Reading, PA
THOMAS M. TWARDOWSKI
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 05-02051-ref Doc 18 Filed 07/20/05 Entered 07/20/05 14:33:16 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 2