MORE BIG INSURANCE COMPANY & LAWYER BEATS UP ON SEVERE AUTISM -- Trevor Rhodes, Esq. & Banker Lopez Gassler, P.A. Tampa Law Firm UNTIMELY Response W/O Leave of Court In Disobedience Of Hon. Judge Paul's April 30, 2013 Order Saying It Is an Appeal and My Objections Filed In Compliance With Judge Paul's Order Should Be Stricken As "Untimely"

Here is Trevor Rhodes, Esq.'s Response untimely filed today under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 11 certifying that his pleading is not frivolous or filed for any improper purpose when he represents IN DIRECT DISOBEDIENCE OF HON. SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE MAURICE PAUL'S APRIL 30, 2013 ORDER, that it is 'an appeal' and that my Objections to the Chief Bankruptcy Judge's Report and Recommendation filed by May 28, 2013 IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDER, should be stricken as unauthorized and untimely -- THIS SHOWS THE OPENLY FRAUD ON THE COURT BY WHICH TREVOR RHODES, ESQ. AND BANKER LOPEZ GASSLER Tampa law firm obtained the sanctions "to deter" my Autistic language and behaviors without my being able to see to read any of the pleadings he filed against me to do so, and by which it appears this lawyer and law firm litigate cases against other Florida parties and law firms:

"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA GAINESVILLE DIVISION

DAVID F. PETRANO and
MARY KATHERINE DAY-PETRANO,


Plaintiffs, v.


1:13-cv-00079-MP-GRJ

TREVOR RHODES, et al,

Defendants.
/

DEFENDANTS, TREVOR RHODES, BANKER LOPEZ GASSLER PA, CARL
SCHWAIT AND NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY’S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF-DEBTOR’S RESPONSE T O 
HON. CHIEF BANKRUPTCY JUDGE ’S RECOMMENDATION MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF REFERENCE

COME NOW, the Defendants, TREVOR RHODES (“Rhodes”), BANKER LOPEZ GASSLER PA (“BLG”), CARL SCHWAIT (“Schwait”) and NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE
INSURANCE COMPNAY (“Nationwide”), pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, file this Response and Objection to Plaintiff-Debtor’s Response to Hon. Chief Bankruptcy Judge’s Recommendation Motion for Withdrawal. (Doc. 12). Although the Plaintiffs’ concurrent Chapter 12 bankruptcy is presently stayed, Defendants feel a response is required because the allegations and issues raised in Plaintiffs’ response directly relate to the bankruptcy. In support of their response and objection, Defendants state the following:
1. As this Court is aware, this is a federal court case with a long and convoluted

procedural history but a brief background, highlighting the main points leading up to this response, is necessary.
2. On January 24, 2013, after the Plaintiffs’ filed a complaint and amended complaint against the named Defendants, the Court adopted a report and recommendation, ordered the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ case with prejudice and entered final judgment. (Doc. 225, 179 1:12-cv- 00086-SPM-GRJ)
3. On February 4, 2013, it was further recommended that sanctions be awarded due to the frivolous nature of the Complaint. (Doc. 182, 1:12-cv-00086-SPM-GRJ).
4. Following the entry of the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation recommending sanctions, the Plaintiffs’ filed for Chapter 12 Bankruptcy (Doc. 1, 13-10052-KKS). Subsequently, the Plaintiffs filed a Suggestion of Bankruptcy on February 12, 2013 and asserted in their filing that this underlying action was subject to the automatic stay provided in 11 U.S.C.
§ 362. (Doc. 191, 1:12-cv-00086-SPM-GRJ).

5. Defendants immediately filed a motion seeking to strike the Petranos’ Suggestion of Bankruptcy, correctly pointing out that the automatic stay typically associated with the filing of bankruptcy would not apply in a case where, as here, the debtors were plaintiffs rather than defendants, nor to the pending award of sanctions. (Doc. 192, 1:12-cv-00086-SPM-GRJ).
6. The Suggestion of Bankruptcy was ultimately stricken. (Doc. 206, 1:12-cv-00086-SPM- GRJ).
7. At a hearing held on April 4, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court ruled that no such stay was in Place. (Doc. 73, 13-10052-KKS).
8. On April 16, 2013, Judge Specie entered the Order on Order to Show Cause as to Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem in Plaintiffs’ Chapter 12 Bankruptcy, case number 13- 10052. Judge Specie specifically ordered that “[t]his Chapter 12 case, and all applicable deadlines shall be stayed until further order of the Court to permit the Debtors time to seek a determination in state court as to whether Day-Petrano is incompetent and as to whether, and to what extent, a guardian ad litem should be appointed for Day-Petrano.” Whether from oversight or clerical error, the Plaintiffs did not mention the judge’s Order in their response. (Doc. 80, 13- 10052-KKS).
9. On April 22, 2013, the District Court withdrew the reference with report and recommendation. (Doc. 1).
10. The Plaintiffs’ filed a response, effectively requesting the District Court to take judicial notice of their allegations and deny Judge Specie’s Report and Recommendation Motion to Withdraw Reference, which is itself an appeal and procedurally inappropriate. (Doc. 9).

Memorandum of Law

I. Defendants did not Waive Proof of Claim or Make Judicial Admission

One portion of the Plaintiffs’ allegations in their response filing is that the Defendants have somehow waived their proof of claim by not filing the same before the originally set deadline in the Plaintiffs’ Chapter 12 Bankruptcy. Defendants maintain that they did not waive their proof of claim or make a judicial admission by not filing a proof of claim prior to the bar date because Judge Specie specifically ordered that all deadlines be stayed in the bankruptcy until further order. (Doc. 80, 13-10052-KKS). As such, the Defendants were stayed from filing a proof of claim. Clearly, no judicial admission was made in this case and the only reason Defendants are compelled to respond is because the Plaintiffs are employing tactics to elicit judicial notice from this District on a bankruptcy matter.

Defendants would also submit that the Plaintiffs are attempting to usurp the ruling of the bankruptcy court by essentially requesting judicial notice from the district court and appealing the report and recommendation without any procedural support. On April 16, 2013, the bankruptcy court entered its Order and stated that the Plaintiffs’ Chapter 12 bankruptcy “and all applicable deadlines shall be stayed until further order of the Court…” (Doc. 80, 13-10052- KKS). Directly relating to the proof of claim bar date, Defendants contend that they are not only stayed from filing a proof of claim because of the order, but that the Plaintiffs are ignoring the appropriate appeals process if they so elect to object to the withdrawal of reference.

Finally, even if the Court determines that Defendants proof of claim was not filed timely and it declares judicial notice on a bankruptcy matter, 11 U.S.C.A. § 501(c) states in part that “[i]f a creditor does not timely file a proof of such creditor's claim, the debtor or the trustee may file a proof of such claim.” Therefore, the proof of claim is not waived.

II. Defendants did not Fail to File Adversary Complaint

Similarly, the Plaintiffs also contend that the Defendants failed to timely file an adversary complaint to determine the dischargeability of their claim. The Defendants maintain that they did not fail to file the adversary complaint to determine the dischargeability of its debt within the sixty (60) days outlined in 11 U.S.C. 523(c) because the entire bankruptcy, including deadlines, was stayed by Judge Specie on April 16, 2013. The sixty (60) days to file the adversary complaint lapsed on May 14, 2013, approximately one month after Judge Specie’s Order. Additionally, the dischargeability of Defendants’ claim, the subject of such an adversary complaint, is the purpose of the withdrawal of reference.

At the risk of being duplicative, the Defendants reiterate that the bankruptcy court, having jurisdiction over this matter, stayed the Plaintiffs’ bankruptcy until further order. (Doc. 80, 13-10052-KKS). The Plaintiffs are simply attempting to usurp the bankruptcy court’s ruling by judicial noticing these matters and ignoring the appropriate procedural and appellate process. The bankruptcy is stayed, therefore the defendants have not failed to file an adversary proceeding to determine dischargeability of claim.

III. Issue at Bar is not a Core Proceeding and Therefore a Withdrawal of Reference is Appropriate

Finally, Plaintiffs delved into discourse regarding mandatory and permissive withdrawal of reference. First, this matter has already been withdrawn to this Court and the Plaintiffs’ response to Judge Specie’s recommendation is untimely. Second, case law establishes that a “core proceeding” is one that could arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case. See, McCord
v. Papantoniou, 316 B.R. 113 (E.D.N.Y.2004); In re Burger Boys, Inc., 183 B.R. 682 (S.D.N.Y.1994); In re Cossett, 75 B.R. 766 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Ohio 1987). By extension, matters that are merely related to bankruptcy case are not core proceedings, and thus, although they are within bankruptcy jurisdiction of district court, bankruptcy judge to whom such matter is referred may only propose findings of fact and conclusions of law to assist district court in rendering judgment. See, In re Markos Gurnee Partnership, 182 B.R. 211 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ill.1995).

Conversely, “non-core proceedings” in bankruptcy are those “otherwise related” to case under title 11 which have significant connection to debtor's bankruptcy but do not satisfy the standard for core proceedings in that the proceeding does not arise under title 11 or in a case under title 11. Plaza at Latham Associates v. Citicorp North America, Inc., 150 B.R. 507 (N.D.N.Y.1993).

Additionally, the Defendants object to the absurd allegation that they are forum shopping this matter. The proceeding at bar arose out of the Plaintiffs’ civil suit against the named Defendants and not from their subsequent bankruptcy or other proceedings. As permitted by statute, the bankruptcy court correctly filed a motion to withdraw the reference and this Honorable Court correctly withdrew the reference to render judgment for the sake of judicial economy.

WHEREFORE, the Defendants, RHODES, BLG, SCHWAIT and NATIONWAIDE,

request that Plaintiffs’ Response be stricken or denied, as well as any and all other relief deemed just and appropriate, in light of the bankruptcy court’s Order Staying Chapter 12 case, and the numerous delineated reasons.

CERTIFICATE OF LOCAL RULE 7.1(B) GOOD FAITH CONFERENCE

The undersigned counsel hereby certifies that counsel for Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company and Carl Schwait, has attempted to confer with pro se Plaintiffs, David F. Petrano and Mary Katherine Day-Petrano, in regards to this matter via email on June 13, 2013, in a good faith effort to resolve the issues presented by Defendants’ response and the relief sought. However, the parties were unable to reach an agreement on same.

Dated this 13th day of June, 2013.

Respectfully submitted,

BANKER LOPEZ GASSLER P.A.
501 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1500
Tampa, FL 33602-5246
(813) 221-1500
Fax No: (813) 222-3066
Attorneys for Defendants Schwait and Nationwide

/s/ Trevor T. Rhodes 
Trevor T. Rhodes Florida Bar No: 0020573
BANKER LOPEZ GASSLER P.A.
501 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1500
Tampa, FL 33602-5246
(813) 221-1500
Fax No: (813) 222-3066
Email: trhodes@bankerlopez.com
Attorneys for Rhodes, BLG, Schwait and Nationwide

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 13th day of June, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system, and will send notice via email or U.S. Mail to the following:
David F. Petrano
11502 SE U.S. Hwy 301
Hawthorne, FL 32640

Mary Katherine Day-Petrano 11502 SE U.S. Hwy 301
Hawthorne, FL 32640

Gina G. Smith
Butler Pppas Weihmuller 3600 Maclay Blvd., Suite 101
Tallahassee, FL 32312

/s/ Trevor T. Rhodes 
Trevor T. Rhodes Florida Bar No: 0020573
BANKER LOPEZ GASSLER P.A.
501 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1500
Tampa, FL 33602-5246
(813) 221-1500
Fax No: (813) 222-3066
Email: trhodes@bankerlopez.com Attorneys for Carl Schwait and Nationwide"