HERBERT A. ROSS
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

      A status conference was held on January 30, 1991 attended by representatives of all parties and an attorney specially appearing for Robert Buckner to assure a smooth transition when debtor's current attorney withdraws. As a result of the hearing, the following order is entered.

      IT IS ORDERED that,

      You may attend telephonically, but you will have to pay for the call and one of the parties must arrange for a conference call if more than one wants to attend by phone. Prior arrangements     1 ABR 346  must be made with the In-Court Recorders (Lori, Janet, or Kathy at 907/271-2640) for a telephonic hearing.

      At the January 30, 1991 status conference, the parties informed me that the Buckner joint venture had no other projects. Its principal asset is its claim against the City of Homer. I understand that there are few (if any) creditors other than the claims of Amwest and the City of Homer against Buckner. I do not have the main case file to verify this, since this is an Oregon bankruptcy. Nonetheless, I request the parties to discuss the desirability of dismissing the bankruptcy before the next hearing set in ¶ 1.

      If the bankruptcy is unnecessary at this point, its dismissal should alleviate unnecessary expense and complexity from everyone's shoulders.

      Amwest has requested a jury trial. It has also filed a proof of claim. Amwest and the City have filed claims for relief against each other. It is possible that these "cross-claims" are "related proceedings." See 1 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 3.01[1][c][iv] at 3-26 (15 ed. 1990) ("'related proceedings' are     1 ABR 348  those which • • • concern suits between third parties which in one way or another affect the administration of the title 11 case"). If they are, and if Amwest's request for a jury trial is timely, and if the parties do not consent to the bankruptcy court entering a final judgment, this court can not hold the jury trial. See In re Cinematronics 916 F2d 1444, 1450-1451 (9th Cir 1990).

      Also, in this district, Bankruptcy Judge MacDonald has held that a bankruptcy court cannot conduct a jury trial. Donald Lewis v. United States of America (In re Lewis), Adv. Proc. No. A90-00414-001, (Bankr.D.Alaska 1990) (Order Denying Jury Trial, September 14, 1990), following In re Bank of Missouri, N.A., 901 F2d 1449 (8th Cir 1990) which held that a bankruptcy judge could not statutorily conduct a jury trial.

      The Supreme Court has yet to decide whether it is constitutionally or statutorily permissible for a bankruptcy judge to conduct a jury trial. In Granfinanciera v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. _____, 109 U.S. 2782, 106 L.Ed.2d 26, 51 (1989), the Supreme Court held that a defendant who had not filed a proof of claim in the bankruptcy and who had been sued by the trustee was entitled to a jury trial in a fraudulent transfer action. The court left open whether a bankruptcy court could conduct such a jury trial.

      On November 13, 1990, the Supreme Court decided Langenkamp v. Culp, ____ U.S. ____, 111 SCt 330, 112 Led 2d 343 (1990) and said the filing of a proof of claim brings a creditor within the equitable jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. Since the creditor had filed a proof of claim, he was not entitled to a     1 ABR 349  jury trial in a preference action against him by the trustee. Query whether this would apply to the claims between the City of Homer and Amwest. Although Amwest filed a proof of claim against the debtor, this may not deprive Amwest of a right to a jury in its third party litigation.

      Also, on November 13, 1990, the Supreme Court remanded a case to the 2nd Circuit so it could determine if the 2nd Circuit had jurisdiction to hear the appeal which lead to its decision in Ben Cooper, Inc. v. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, 896 F2d 1394 (2nd Cir 1990). See Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania v. Ben Cooper, Inc., 59 U.S.L.W. 3362 (U.S. Nov. 13, 1990).

      Many bankruptcy practitioners and judges hoped that the Supreme Court, in Ben Cooper, would decide the scope of a bankruptcy judge's authority to conduct a jury trial. The 2nd Circuit ruling in Ben Cooper was that a bankruptcy judge could conduct a jury trial in a "core proceeding." With the November, 1990 remand, the issue may remain in doubt for another term, although the 2nd Circuit held on January 22, 1991, in response to the Supreme Court's remand, that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Ben Cooper, Inc. v. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (In re Ben Cooper, Inc.), _____ F2d _____, 1991 WL 4403 (2d Cir. 1991) (reinstating the opinion in 896 F2d 1394).

      Given the complexity of this adversary proceeding, the amount of money involved, and the uncertain authority of a bankruptcy court to conduct a jury trial, it may be unwise to continue this case in the bankruptcy court. Since there is a     1 ABR 350  pending action in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska mirroring this adversary proceeding, the District Court could accommodate the jury request in that case.

      That said, if the parties do want to go forward with this adversary proceeding in this court, we will proceed with deliberate speed.