Weidman v. PG&E Corporation

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 WEIDMAN, Case No. 22-cv-00389-HSG 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 Vv. DISMISS 10 PG&E CORPORATION, Re: Dkt. No. 3 ll Defendant.

5 13 On January 18, 2022, William F. Weidman, III (“Appellant”) filed a notice of appeal 14 || regarding an order entered by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of 3 15 || California (the “Bankruptcy Court”). Dkt. No. 1. The order he seeks to appeal is the Bankruptcy a 16 || Court’s Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration by William F. Weidman, II (“Order Denying 3 17 Reconsideration”), which was entered on December 15, 2021. See id. at 2. Before the Court is 18 || PG&E Corporation’s and Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (collectively, “PG&E”) motion to 19 || dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Dkt. No. 3. The Court agrees that it lacks 20 || jurisdiction to hear this appeal and accordingly GRANTS PG&E’s motion. 21 Bankruptcy Rule 8002(a)(1) states that “a notice of appeal must be filed with the 22 || bankruptcy clerk within 14 days after entry of the judgment, order, or decree being appealed.” It 23 || is well settled that the deadlines imposed by Bankruptcy Rule 8002 are “mandatory and 24 || jurisdictional.” In re Ozenne, 841 F.3d 810, 814 (9th Cir. 2016).' Because Appellant filed his 25 || notice of appeal 34 days after the deadline, it was untimely under Bankruptcy Rule 8002(a)(1), 26 27 ' See also Canyon Cap. Advisors LLC vy. PG&E Corp., No. 20-CV-04949-HSG, 2020 WL 28 7342683, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2020), affd sub nom. Matter of PG&E Corp., No. 21-15025, 2021 WL 5985027 (9th Cir. Dec. 6, 2021).

1 and it must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See In re Delaney, 29 F.3d 516, 518 (9th Cir. 2 1994) (“The provisions of Bankruptcy Rule 8002 are jurisdictional; the untimely filing of a notice 3 of appeal deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to review the bankruptcy court's order.”).” 4 PG&E’s motion to dismiss the appeal is therefore GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to 5 || close the case and terminate this appeal. 6 8 || Dated: 6/13/2022 ( 10 Aespurd 5. bb HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. I United States District Judge 12

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 |) 2 The Court also notes that the Bankruptcy Court recommended that Appellant’s appeal be 26 || dismissed for lack of prosecution. See Dkt. No. 12-1. This was because Appellant failed to perfect his appeal in the manner prescribed by Bankruptcy Rule 8009, which required him to file a 07 designation of items to be included in the record on appeal and a statement of the issues to be presented within 14 days of filing the notice of appeal. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8009(a)(1)(B). 2g || Because Appellant’s appeal is untimely in the first place, the Court need not and does not consider whether dismissal is also warranted for lack of prosecution.