Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05532/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05532-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICIA HEWLETT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY

COURT,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-05532 CRB

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Patricia Hewlett petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus vacating the Bankruptcy

Court’s order mandating that Hewlett vacate the premises at 1385 Clay Street, Apartment 3

in San Francisco, California. The petition is DENIED.

“The remedy of mandamus is a drastic one, to be involved only in extraordinary

situations.” Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). “[O]nly

exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial ‘usurpation of power’ will justify the

invocation of this extraordinary remedy.” Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 95 (1967). Put

simply, this case does not present the kind of “exceptional” or “extraordinary” situation that

warrants mandamus relief. 

For a mandamus petition to be granted, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the lower

court clearly erred as a matter of law. See Douglas v. United States District Court, 495 F.3d

1062, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007). In this case, mandamus is inappropriate because it is not at all

Case 3:07-cv-05532-CRB Document 7 Filed 10/31/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

clear that the Bankruptcy Court erred when it ordered that Hewlett vacate the 1385 Clay

Street premises.

As at least one circuit court has concluded, § 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code

authorizes bankruptcy courts to allow the sale of a debtor’s property unencumbered by a

lessee’s possessory interests, despite the terms of another section of the code, § 365(h),

which generally protects a lessee’s rights upon rejection of a lease. See Precision Indus., Inc.

v. Qualitech Steel SBQ, LLC, 327 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2003). While the issue remains

unsettled in this circuit, the bankruptcy court’s conclusion that it had authority to sell the

1385 Clay Street property free and clear of Hewlett’s possessory interest cannot be deemed

“clearly erroneous.”

Hewlett argues that the bankruptcy court clearly erred because she did not have proper

notice of the trustee’s motion to remove her from the property. As an initial matter, it is

unclear to this Court how Hewlett’s attorney attended the hearing if he had not received

notice. Regardless, local bankruptcy court rules provide that electronic notice, which was

indisputably sent to Hewlett’s counsel, constitutes effective service of all notices governed

by Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 7005 and 9022. See N. Dist. of Cal. Bankr. Ct.

L.R. 9013-3(c). Perhaps Hewlett believes that Local Rule 9013-3(c) contravenes the federal

due process clause, but that is far from clear to this Court.

Hewlett also argues that the bankruptcy court’s order was clearly erroneous because it

conflicts with local landlord/tenant law. It is a well-established principle that pursuant to the

Supremacy Clause, federal law trumps state and municipal laws that “interfere with, or are

contrary to” it. Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 211 (1824). The notion that a

bankruptcy judge cannot act under a provision of the bankruptcy code because it would

conflict with San Francisco’s Tenant’s Rights Ordinance is a non-starter. 

///

Case 3:07-cv-05532-CRB Document 7 Filed 10/31/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Because Hewlett has not established that the bankruptcy court clearly erred as a matter

of law, the mandamus petition is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-05532-CRB Document 7 Filed 10/31/07 Page 3 of 3