Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00798/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00798-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 423
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Withdrawal 28 USC 157
Cause of Action: 11:101 Bankruptcy

---

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

JEFFREY H. BECK,

Plaintiff,

 v.

FORT JAMES CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-05-0798 MMC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

VACATING HEARING

Before the Court is defendants Fort James Corporation, Fort James Operating

Company, Fort James Fiber Company, and Fort James International Holdings, Ltd.’s

(collectively, “Fort James”) motion for summary judgment, filed October 13, 2006, pursuant

to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On October 27, 2006, plaintiff Jeffrey

H. Beck filed opposition, and, on November 3, 2006, Fort James replied. Thereafter, on

November 21, 2006, in accordance with the Court’s order of November 14, 2006, plaintiff

filed supplemental opposition. Having reviewed the papers filed in support and in

opposition to the motion, the court deems the matter appropriate for decision on the

papers, VACATES the hearing scheduled for December 15, 2006, and rules as follows:

1. By the instant action, plaintiff seeks a declaration that Fort James’s counterclaim

for attorney’s fees in Crown Paper Co. v. Fort James Corp., C-02-3838, constitutes a prepetition claim. In the instant motion for summary judgment, Fort James argues the aboveCase 3:05-cv-00798-MMC Document 59 Filed 12/12/06 Page 1 of 2
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

titled action is barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel, based on the Court’s ruling in a

related case, Crown Paper Liquidating Trust v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, et al., C 02-3836

MMC. Although the Court disagrees that its earlier ruling has collateral estoppel effect, the

Court, for the reasons stated in said related action, (see id., Order Granting Def. Houlihan’s

Mot. for Award of Attorney’s Fees, filed March 30, 2005, at 4:14-23), finds, as a matter of

law, that the above-referenced counterclaim does not constitute a pre-petition claim.

Accordingly, Fort James’s motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED.

2. By the instant action, plaintiff seeks against McGuireWoods, LLP

(“McGuireWoods”) the same declaratory relief plaintiff seeks against Fort James. 

Although, unlike Fort James, McGuireWoods has not filed a dispositive motion,

McGuireWoods stands in the same position as Fort James with respect to the claim alleged

herein, and, consequently, plaintiff’s claim against McGuireWoods is “appropriate for sua

sponte summary judgment.” See Columbia Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Ahlstrom Recovery,

44 F. 3d 800, 803 (9th Cir. 1995)) (affirming summary judgment in favor of nonmoving

defendant where same issues “controll[ed]” determinations as to moving and nonmoving

parties).

Accordingly, summary judgment is hereby GRANTED in favor of McGuireWoods.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00798-MMC Document 59 Filed 12/12/06 Page 2 of 2