In its brief, the ABA contends that the civil caseloads of federal district courts, which are already beset with personnel and funding shortfalls, would increase significantly if bankruptcy judges, with litigant consent, were no longer allowed to handle fraudulent transfer, preference, state-law and similar claims.
Based on data compiled by the ABA, the "real consequences" of shifting such cases to the U.S. district courts would be "stark," the brief states.
According to the ABA's conservative estimates, over the period from 2009 to 2012, the civil docket for the District of Delaware would have more than doubled, while the civil docket for the Southern District of New York would have seen a nearly 18 percent increase. Civil dockets for district courts representing the remaining judicial circuits—in California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Texas and Virginia—would have seen caseload increases ranging from at least 4.4 percent to 11 percent.
The brief concludes that when judicial economy and practicality do not conflict with constitutional principles, bankruptcy litigants should be able to consent to having a bankruptcy judge handle matters that the Constitution otherwise reserves for the Article III courts.
The brief is available online here.
With nearly 400,000 members, the American Bar Association is one of the largest voluntary professional membership organizations in the world. As the national voice of the legal profession, the ABA works to improve the administration of justice, promotes programs that assist lawyers and judges in their work, accredits law schools, provides continuing legal education, and works to build public understanding around the world of the importance of the rule of law. View our privacy statement online. Follow the latest ABA news at www.ambar.org/news and on Twitter @ABANews.