Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00837/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00837-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

- 1 -

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAMELA CHYBA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

TXU ENERGY, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 12cv837-LAB (NLS)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS [Dkt. 65]

Chyba originally sued the TXU Defendants (“TXU”) in 2012, alleging violations of 

the Fair Credit Reporting Act. After TXU went into bankruptcy in 2014, this Court stayed 

the case for the duration of those proceedings. Dkt. 58. In July of this year, after nearly 

four years of radio silence, the Court ordered the parties to show cause why the case 

shouldn’t be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Dkt. 63. It appears the parties, or at least 

TXU, had essentially forgotten about the case. Judge Benitez’s Stay Order required TXU 

to file a status report every 120 days, but TXU filed an initial status report and then 

proceeded to ignore the status report requirement for the better part of four years.

Notwithstanding TXU’s violation of the Court’s order, it now asks this Court to 

dismiss Chyba’s claims, arguing that she is precluded from continuing this litigation 

because she failed to timely submit a claim during the bankruptcy, as she was required 

to do. The reorganization plan for TXU and its affiliated entities required that any 

creditors, including Chyba, file a notice of their claims by certain dates. In August 2014, 

Case 3:12-cv-00837-LAB-NLS Document 74 Filed 12/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
- 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

Epiq, the bankruptcy claims agent for the TXU bankruptcy, claims to have served Chyba 

with a copy of the Bar Date Notice, warning that her claims would be barred if she failed

to timely submit a claim:

Pursuant to the Bar Date Order and in accordance with 

Bankruptcy Rule 3003(c)(2), if you or any party or entity who 

is required, but fails, to file a proof of claim in accordance with 

the Bar Date Order on or before the applicable Bar Date, 

please be advised that:

(a) YOU WILL BE FOREVER BARRED, ESTOPPED, AND 

ENJOINED FROM ASSERTING SUCH CLAIM AGAINST 

THE DEBTORS (OR FILING A PROOF OF CLAIM WITH 

RESPECT THERETO);

(b) THE DEBTORS AND THEIR PROPERTY SHALL BE 

FOREVER DISCHARGED FROM ANY AND ALL 

INDEBTEDNESS OR LIABILITY WITH RESPECT TO OR 

ARISING FROM SUCH CLAIM;

(c) YOU WILL NOT RECEIVE ANY DISTRIBUTION IN 

THESE CHAPTER 11 CASES ON ACCOUNT OF THAT 

CLAIM; AND

(d) YOU WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO VOTE ON ANY 

PLAN OR PLANS OF REORGANIZATION FOR THE

DEBTORS ON ACCOUNT OF THESE BARRED CLAIMS 

OR RECEIVE FURTHER NOTICES REGARDING SUCH

CLAIM. 

Dkt. 73, Ex. A-1 at “Page 288”; see also Garabato Decl., Dkt. 73, Ex. C ¶ 4 (“In August 

2014, Epiq served Pamela Chyba with the [Bar Date Notice]. In addition to the Bar Date 

Notice, Epiq served Ms. Chyba with a sample ‘Proof of Claim Form,’ amongst other 

documents.”). Despite these warnings, TXU says Chyba never filed a claim. See 

Garabato Decl., Dkt. 73, Ex. C ¶ 5 (“Ms. Chyba did not submit a claim.”).

Chyba argues in opposition that she did, in fact, submit a claim prior to the Bar 

Date. See Plaintiff’s Opposition, Dkt. 68 at 4 (“Plaintiff did send the ‘proof of claim’ on 

October 14, 2014 – plaintiff filled out the provided pamphlet and returned ‘proof of claim’ 

to third party entity.” [sic]). 

The Court is not in a position to hash out whether Chyba did or did not send in a 

proof of claim, and a motion to dismiss is the not the appropriate vehicle for weighing 

Case 3:12-cv-00837-LAB-NLS Document 74 Filed 12/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

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

conflicting evidence. If Chyba did send in a claim and the claims administrator ignored it, 

that’s an issue for the Bankruptcy Court, not this one. The Bankruptcy Court “retain[s] 

exclusive jurisdiction over all matters arising out of, or related to, the Chapter 11 Cases 

and the Plan . . . including jurisdiction to: . . . adjudicate, decide, or resolve any motions, 

adversary proceedings, contested or litigated matters, and any other matters . . . involving 

a Debtor that may be pending on the Effective Date.” Dkt. 66, Ex. A-2 at Ex. A, p. 110. If 

Chyba wishes to continue pursuing her claims against TXU, she must therefore do it in 

the Bankruptcy Court. TXU’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and this case is 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk is directed to close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 10, 2018

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-00837-LAB-NLS Document 74 Filed 12/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3