UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Case No. 19-cv HSG 8

Similar documents
Case 1:15-cv JMF Document 9 Filed 08/27/15 Page 1 of 14

Case 1:12-cv VM Document 30 Filed 02/06/13 Page 1 of 12 LJSDC NY: Plaintiff, Defendant. Debtor. VICTOR MARRERO, united States District Judge.

File Name: 15b0001n.06 BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) )

Case 3:16-cv GTS Document 14 Filed 09/11/17 Page 1 of 12

scc Doc 928 Filed 03/12/12 Entered 03/12/12 18:37:05 Main Document Pg 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 7:12-cv KMK Document 177 Filed 01/11/17 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. On September 5, 2017, Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ( Wells Fargo ) moved to

Case pwb Doc 1097 Filed 11/26/14 Entered 11/26/14 10:26:12 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION. v. ) Docket No. EL

Case 2:15-cv MJP Document 10 Filed 04/06/16 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI`I

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:15-cv HSG Document 67 Filed 12/30/15 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 1:16-cv JPO Document 75 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 11 X : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : X. Plaintiffs,

US Bank NA v. Maury Rosenberg

Case 3:15-cv DJH Document 19 Filed 02/04/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 984

Case 1:15-mc JGK Document 26 Filed 05/11/15 Page 1 of 10

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No (1:15-cv GBL-MSN)

Case 4:04-cv CLS-HGD Document 203 Filed 08/06/2008 Page 1 of 5 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA MIDDLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION. Berry Petroleum Company ) Docket No. ER _

cag Doc#413 Filed 04/02/18 Entered 04/02/18 13:54:23 Main Document Pg 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case pwb Doc 1093 Filed 11/20/14 Entered 11/20/14 11:00:52 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 8

Who s the Boss? FERC and the Bankruptcy Courts Continuing Battle for Power

Case 8:12-cv GLS Document 19 Filed 05/15/13 Page 1 of 12. Appellee. MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER. I. Introduction

Case jal Doc 133 Filed 04/11/17 Entered 04/11/17 12:17:09 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term, Docket No cv (l), cv (CON)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

ENTERED TAWANA C. MARSHALL, CLERK THE DATE OF ENTRY IS ON THE COURT'S DOCKET

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Case 4:17-cv HSG Document 180 Filed 12/26/18 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION

Case 4:18-cv HSG Document 38 Filed 07/23/18 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 1:15-cv GNS-HBB Document 19 Filed 07/15/15 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 976

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term, (Argued: January 30, 2015 Decided: June 30, 2015) Docket No.

STATE DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS RESPONSES TO AMICUS BRIEF OF UNITED STATES AND FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Case 2:05-cv WBS -GGH Document 225 Filed 03/31/11 Page 1 of 12. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ----oo0oo----

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA NEW ALBANY DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case MFW Doc 151 Filed 12/05/14 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Nos & IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. STEVE TRUNK, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,

Case , Document 34-1, 03/18/2016, , Page1 of 1

V. JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv UU.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Oakland Benta v. James Carroll

Case 1:06-cv CAP Document 47 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Case pwb Doc 281 Filed 10/28/16 Entered 10/28/16 13:58:15 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 12

Case 2:09-cv DPH-MJH Document 28 Filed 01/20/2010 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case Doc 310 Filed 08/20/18 Page 1 of 9. UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Greenbelt Division. Chapter 11 Debtor.

Case , Document 48-1, 07/16/2015, , Page1 of 1

Case KLP Doc Filed 10/28/16 Entered 10/28/16 14:39:56 Desc Response Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

ORDER RELATING CASE AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES AND APPOINT INTERIM COUNSEL

MEMORANDUM. ("Pickard"), defendants in the above-captioned adversary proceeding ("Defendants"), move this

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case 1:15-cv SAS Document 14 Filed 12/03/15 Page 1 of 14

Case 2:12-cv MWF-SP Document 35 Filed 11/26/12 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:787 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

File Name: 16b0002n.06 BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) )

Case GLT Doc 1179 Filed 10/02/17 Entered 10/02/17 19:04:53 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION. v. Case No: 2:13-cv SPC-UA ORDER

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI. TONY EDDINS and HILDA EDDINS GMAC MORTGAGE COMPANY OPINION

Case: JMD Doc #: 304 Filed: 03/06/12 Desc: Main Document Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

LLC, was removed to this Court from state court in December (Docket No. 1). At that

Case 2:10-cv TFM-CRE Document 99 Filed 05/31/13 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x In re: Chapter 11

Case DHS Doc 13-4 Filed 01/30/13 Entered 01/30/13 15:19:17 Desc Memorandum of Law Page 1 of 13

Case 2:16-cv ES-SCM Document 78 Filed 01/25/18 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 681 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

On January 22,2010, the United States Government, on behalf offederal and state

Case: , 12/08/2016, ID: , DktEntry: 80-1, Page 1 of 8 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 4:18-cv HSG Document 46 Filed 02/07/19 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 1:10-cv SO Doc #: 19 Filed: 10/18/10 1 of 9. PageID #: 1267 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION. Debtor. Chapter 11. Debtor.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 2:18-cv JAM-DB Document 34 Filed 10/26/18 Page 1 of 8

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

shl Doc 2384 Filed 10/23/17 Entered 10/23/17 10:34:04 Main Document Pg 1 of 8. Debtors. : : : : : : : : : Appellant, Appellee.

Supreme Court Rules on Bankruptcy Courts Authority, Leaves Key Question Unanswered

ORDER GRANTING LIMITED INTERVENTION

Chapter 15 Recognition Mandatory and Fully Encumbered Assets Are Property of the Debtor Protected by Automatic Stay. November/December 2013

United States Court of Appeals

_._..._------_._ _.._... _..._..._}(

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No PAUL GREEN SCHOOL OF ROCK MUSIC FRANCHISING, LLC. JIM R. SMITH, Appellant.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

Case: , 05/03/2017, ID: , DktEntry: 39-1, Page 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE November 2, 2016 Session

Case 0:10-cv WPD Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/31/2011 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case: 5:17-cv SL Doc #: 22 Filed: 12/01/17 1 of 9. PageID #: 1107 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

rdd Doc 11 Filed 03/01/13 Entered 03/01/13 17:32:32 Main Document Pg 1 of 14 : :

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 1:10-cv NMG Document 224 Filed 01/24/14 Page 1 of 9. United States District Court District of Massachusetts

Case 1:08-cv JSR Document 151 Filed 05/23/16 Page 1 of 14

Plaintiff-Appellant, 04 Civ (KMW) -against- OPINION AND ORDER. Plaintiff-Appellant John S. Pereira, as Chapter 7 Trustee

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ORAL ARGUMENT HEARD ON SEPTEMBER 27, No and Consolidated Cases

USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv TLS document 12 filed 06/26/15 page 1 of 13

Transcription:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PG&E CORPORATION, et al., Case No. -cv-00-hsg 0 v. Plaintiffs, FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Defendant. ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO WITHDRAW THE REFERENCE Re: Dkt. No. PG&E CORPORATION, et al., v. Plaintiffs, FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Case No. -cv-00-hsg Re: Dkt. No. Defendant. 0 Pending before the Court are two motions to withdraw the automatic reference to the United States Bankruptcy Court. See Case No. -cv-00, Dkt. No. -; Case No. -cv-00, Dkt. No. -. In addition to the parties papers, Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali from whose court these withdrawals of reference stem submitted a recommendation regarding the motions, as permitted under Bankruptcy Local Rule 0-(b). Dkt. No.. After carefully considering the parties arguments and Judge Montali s recommendation, the Court DENIES the motions. // Docket references are to Case Number -cv-00 unless otherwise indicated.

0 I. BACKGROUND On January, 0, PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (collectively, Debtors ) filed voluntary petitions for relief under chapter of the Bankruptcy Code. Case Nos. -00-DM, -00-DM. The same day, Debtors filed an adversary proceeding against the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ( FERC ), seeking a declaratory judgment to enforce the automatic stay of U.S.C. and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. The Debtors did so because immediately before they filed for bankruptcy, FERC issued two decisions that the Debtors now believe conflict with their right to move to assume or reject executory contracts in the bankruptcy cases. Those FERC orders concluded that FERC has concurrent jurisdiction to review and address the disposition of wholesale power contracts sought to be rejected through bankruptcy. See, e.g., NextEra Order at, FERC,0 (0). II. LEGAL STANDARD District courts have original but not exclusive jurisdiction over all bankruptcy 0 proceedings. See U.S.C. (b). Such proceedings fall into one of two categories: core proceedings, in which the bankruptcy court may enter appropriate orders and judgment, and non-core proceedings, which the bankruptcy court may hear but for which it may only submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court for de novo review. Sec. Farms v. Int l Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffers, Warehousemen & Helpers, F.d, 00 (th Cir. ) (quoting U.S.C. ) (internal quotation marks omitted). In the, all bankruptcy cases are automatically referred to the bankruptcy court. B.L.R. 0-(a) (referring all bankruptcy cases in the Northern District of California to its bankruptcy court); see also U.S.C. (a) ( Each district court may provide that any or all cases under title and any or all proceedings arising under title or arising in or related to a case under title shall be referred to the bankruptcy judges for the district. ). On a timely motion, however, any party may seek to withdraw that reference, which is governed by U.S.C. (d). Under Section (d): The 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. The district court shall, on

0 0 timely motion of a party, so withdraw a proceeding if the court determines that resolution of the proceeding requires consideration of both title and other laws of the United States regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce. The statute creates two bases for withdrawal: mandatory and permissive. Under either, [t]he party seeking withdrawal of the reference bears the burden of showing that the reference should be withdrawn. In re Heller Ehrman LLP, B.R., (N.D. Cal. 0) (citing In re Larry s Apartment, LLC, 0 B.R., (Bankr. D. Ariz. )). Withdrawal is mandatory where resolution of the proceeding requires consideration of both title and other laws of the United States regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce. U.S.C. (d). Overwhelmingly courts and commentators agree that the mandatory withdrawal provision cannot be given its broadest literal reading, for sending every proceeding that required passing consideration of non-bankruptcy law back to the district court would eviscerate much of the work of the bankruptcy courts. In re Vicars Ins. Agency, Inc., F.d, (th Cir. ) (quoting In re Adelphi Inst., Inc., B.R., (S.D.N.Y. 0). Courts in the Ninth Circuit have concluded that withdrawal is mandatory under Section (d) when [non-title ] issues require the interpretation, as opposed to mere application, of the non-title statute, or when the court must undertake analysis of significant open and unresolved issues regarding the non-title law. See In re Tamalpais Bancorp, B.R., (N.D. Cal. 0). Under this approach, the withdrawing party must do more than merely suggest that novel issues of law could possibly arise in a bankruptcy proceeding. Id. Withdrawal is permissive for cause shown. U.S.C. (d). In considering whether a party has shown cause to withdraw the reference, [i]t is within a district court's discretion to grant or deny a motion for permissive withdrawal of reference; that decision will not be disturbed unless the court abuses its discretion. In re EPD Inv. Co. LLC, No. cv -0 SJO, 0 WL, at * (C.D. Cal. Sept., 0) (citing In re Cinematronics, Inc., F.d, (th Cir. 0)). III. DISCUSSION The Court first finds that mandatory withdrawal is not required. The withdrawing parties contend that withdrawal is mandated because resolution of the Adversary Proceeding will require

0 0 substantial and material consideration... of non-bankruptcy federal law. See, e.g., Dkt. No. - at. Principally, they argue that the adversary proceeding must resolve: () whether the exclusive review process set forth in the FPA bars the Debtors from collaterally attacking the FERC Order in the bankruptcy court; () whether the bankruptcy court can unilaterally order the rejection of the NextEra PPAs (or other wholesale power contracts subject to FERC s authority) notwithstanding FERC s exclusive jurisdiction over the rates, terms, and conditions for the sale of electricity; and () whether and to what extent the standard for rejection should include the consideration of the public interest, as well as which forum should consider the public interest question. Id. But as Judge Montali notes in his recommendation, the bankruptcy court need not look beyond the Bankruptcy Code to address these questions: It is my view all that needs to be done is consider the plain language of Section of the Bankruptcy Code. There you will find the answer to the question of whether FERC can decree that U.S.C. must be construed to permit FERC to second guess the bankruptcy court and impose its own decision on that court. Dkt. No. at. The Court agrees that resolving these questions will not necessarily involve the substantial and material consideration of non-title law so as to mandate withdrawal. See In re Tamalpais Bancorp, B.R. at. The Court further finds that permissive withdrawal is not warranted. As Judge Montali s recommendation notes, among other things, the bankruptcy court has already received Debtors motion for a Preliminary Injunction; FERC s opposition to that motion; and NextEra and the other interveners joint opposition. Dkt. No. at. In short order, the bankruptcy court will have heard extensive argument and engaged in significant study and preparation for making a ruling, and [b]y permitting [the bankruptcy court] to do so, [the district court] will avoid the duplication of effort that will be necessary for [it] to prepare for and decide the same issue. Id. at. With these considerations in mind, the Court finds that the most efficient use of judicial resources is to deny the withdrawal of reference and permit the bankruptcy court to rule in the adversary proceeding. See Sec. Farms, F.d at 00. And given that the bankruptcy court intends to rule on the adversary proceeding in short order, denying the withdrawal requests will not result in undue delay and costs. See id. //

IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the pending motions for withdrawal of the reference. And in light of this order, the Court DENIES AS MOOT FERC s motion to expedite consideration of its motion to withdraw the reference. See Case No. -cv-00, Dkt. No.. The Clerk is directed to terminate the cases. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: //0 0 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 0