v. Black Stone Investment Group

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 4:24-cv-01931 Document3_ Filed 02/20/26in TXSD Page1of2

United States District Court
Southem District of Texas

ENTERED
February 20, 2026

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

BLACK STONE INVESTMENT GROUP § CIVIL ACTION NO, 4:24-CV-01931

§
Debtor §

ORDER

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed by Chief United States
Bankruptcy Judge Eduardo V. Rodriguez. Doc. #1, In the Report and Recommendation, Judge
Rodriguez informed the Court that Ann Banda (“Banda”), proceeding pro se, filed a Motion to
Withdraw the Reference (the “Motion to Withdraw’) on May 16, 2024, in the Chapter 7
bankruptcy proceeding, Jd, Judge Redriguz recommends that the Motion, and only the Motion,
be withdrawn to this Court because the Motion appears to tangentially concern former Judge David
Jones. /d. Judge Rodriguez further noted that the Motion was procedurally improper and “could
be struck or dismissed for numerous reasons.” Jd.

Banda’s Motion to Withdraw requests that the Court withdraw the reference pursuant to
28 US.C. § 157(d) (“Section 157¢d)”). Under the permissive withdrawal provision of Section
157(d), “[t]he district court may withdraw, in whole or in part, any case or proceeding referred
under this section, on its own motion or on timely motion of any party, for cause shown.” 28
ULS.C, § 157(d); see also In re Morrison, 409 B.R, 384, 389 (S.D. Tex. 2009), “The decision to
grant or deny this motion is committed to the discretion of the district court.” Veldekens v. GE
AFS Holdings, Inc., 362 B.R. 762, 765 (8.D. Tex, 2007), “In the Fifth Circuit, courts consider six
factors when evaluating whether the moving party has demonstrated “cause’ for withdrawal of the
reference.” Jn re Morrison, 409 B.R. at 389, Those six factors are: (1) “core versus non-core

matters,” (2) “fostering the economical use of the debtors’ and creditors’ resources,” (3)

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION
GPO

Case 4:24-cv-01931 Document3_ Filed 02/20/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2

“expediting the bankruptcy process,” (4) “reducing forum shopping and confusion,” (5) “whether
jury demands have been made,” and (6) “promot[ing] uniformity in bankruptcy administration.”
Id.

Here, the Motion to Withdraw does not outline any specific cause for withdrawal of the
reference, much less address the six factors district courts consider when evaluating such requests
under Section 157(d). As such, the Court finds that that the Motion to Withdraw should be denied.
See id. at 386 (denying withdrawal of the reference because the parties requesting withdrawal
“failed to satisfy their burden to establish a ‘sound articulated foundation’ for permissive
withdrawal of the reference”). For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts Judge Rodriguez’s
Report and Recommendation (Doc. #1) and WITHDRAWS only the Motion to Withdraw.
Furthermore, the Motion to Withdraw filed by Ann Banda on May 16, 2024, is hereby DENIED,
and this civil action is DISMISSED.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.

It is so ORDERED.

FEB 20 2026

Date The Honorable Ain H, Bennett
United States Distrigt Judge