Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03243/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03243-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 423
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Withdrawal 28 USC 157
Cause of Action: 28:0157 Motion for Withdrawal of Reference

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 2 OF

GRANT COUNTY, WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-03243 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON OCTOBER 12, 2007 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not

cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these

authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If

the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the

authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). 

The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such

authority.

The Court tentatively DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for withdrawal of reference and

transfer of venue.

Case 3:07-cv-03243-JSW Document 24 Filed 10/11/07 Page 1 of 2
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

The parties shall each have 20 minutes to address the following questions:

1. The parties dispute the import and effect of the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Bonneville

Power Admin. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm’n, 422 F.3d 908 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Considering the very issue disputed in this matter is currently before the Ninth Circuit

on Plaintiff’s appeal, why isn’t the most prudent course for this Court to deny the

current motion without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling at such time as the issue is squarely

addressed by the Ninth Circuit? Does the fact of the pending appeal deprive this Court

of jurisdiction to withdraw the reference or would exercise of such jurisdiction be an

inefficient use of Court resources? Would ruling on the current motion create a

potential conflict for the Ninth Circuit should the appellate court agree with Defendant’s

interpretation of Bonneville?

2. On what authority does Plaintiff contend that a district court may withdraw a reference

with respect to any bankruptcy matter notwithstanding the contrary language of a

confirmed bankruptcy plan? Is the bankruptcy court’s decision to permit adjudication of

Grant’s claim only before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission binding as res

judicata in this case?

3. What is the status of Plaintiff’s motion to sever and stay the California action and to

quash the summons for lack of personal jurisdiction in the California state court action

pending in Los Angeles?

4. Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 11, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-03243-JSW Document 24 Filed 10/11/07 Page 2 of 2