The Honorable George B. Daniels, United States * District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

1 08-3658-bk In re Calpine Corp.



### UNITE D STATES C OURT OF AP PEALS FOR T HE SE COND CIRCU IT



# SUM MARY ORDE R

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO SUMMARY ORDERS FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS P E RM ITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1 AND FEDERAL RUL E O FA P P E L LA T E P RO C E D U RE 3 2

. 1

. I NAB R I E F O RO T H E RPA P E RI NWH I C H AL I T I GANT CITES A SUMMARY ORDER, IN EACH PARAGRAPH IN WHICH A CITATION APPEARS, AT LEAST ONE CITATION MUST EITHER BE TO THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE NOTATION: “(SUMMARY ORDER).” UNLESS THE SUMMARY ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE WHICH IS PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT HTTP://WWW.CA2.USCOURTS.GOV), THE PARTY CITING THE SUMMARY ORDER MUST FILE AND SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER TOGETHER WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS CITED. IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE, THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THAT DATABASE AND THE DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED.



### 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 

### 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 

### 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 

### 4 New York, on the 25 day of November, two thousand nine. th 

### 5 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, 

### 6 7 Chief Judge, 

### 8 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 

### 9 Circuit Judge, 

### 10 GEORGE B. DANIELS, * 

### 11 District Judge. 

### 12 13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 

### 14 15 IN RE: CALPINE CORPORATION, 

### 16 17 Debtor, 

### 18
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 

### 19 202 

### 1 ELIAS A. FELLUSS, 

### 2 Appellant, 

### 3 4 5 -v.- 08-3658-bk 

### 6 7 CALPINE CORPORATION, THE OFFICIAL 

### 8 COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS, 

### 9 10 Appellees. 

### 11 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 

### 13 APPEARING FOR APPELLANT: ELIAS A. FELLUSS, pro se, 

### 14 15 Centerport, N.Y. 

### 16 17 18 APPEARING FOR APPELLEES: RICHARD M. CIERI, MARC 

### 19 KIESELSTEIN, and DAVID R. 

### 20 SELIGMAN, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, 

### 21 New York, N.Y., and JEFFREY S. 

### 22 POWELL, ASHLEY C. PARRISH, and 

### 23 SCOTT M. ABELES, Kirkland & 

### 24 Ellis, Washington, D.C., for 

### 25 Reorganized Debtors-Appellees. 

### 26 27 MICHAEL S. STAMER, DAVID M. 

### 28 ZENSKY, and PHILIP C. DUBLIN, 

### 29 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld 

### 30 LLP, New York, N.Y., for 

### 31 Appellee Official Committee of 

### 32 Unsecured Creditors. 

### 33 34 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 

### 35 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be 

### 36 AFFIRMED

. 

### 37 38 Elias A. Felluss, pro se, appeals from the judgment of 

### 39 the United States District Court for the Southern District 

### 40 of New York (Marrero, J.), dismissing as moot his appeal 

### 41 from a judgment of the United States Bankruptcy Court for 

### 42 the Southern District of New York (Lifland, J.). We assume 

### 43 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the 

### 44 procedural history, and the issues presented for review. 

### 453 

### 1 A district court’s affirmation of a bankruptcy court’s 

### 2 judgment is subject to plenary review; conclusions of law 

### 3 are reviewed de novo and findings of fact are reviewed for 

### 4 clear error. In re First Cent. Fin. Corp., 377 F.3d 209, 

### 5 212 (2d Cir. 2004). Having undertaken such a review, we 

### 6 affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district 

### 7 court. Felluss’s appeal is equitably moot because the plan 

### 8 of reorganization was substantially consummated and Felluss 

### 9 has not overcome the ensuing presumption of mootness by 

### 10 establishing the factors set forth in In re Chateaugay 

### 11 Corp., 10 F.3d 944, 952-54 (2d Cir. 1993). 

### 12 13 Finding no merit in Felluss’s remaining arguments, we 

### 14 AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 

### 15 16 17 FOR THE COURT: 

### 18 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 

### 19 20 By:___________________________