Abrams v. PG&E Corporation
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:25-cv-06026
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Abrams v. PG&E Corporation, Judge Gilliam denied transfer of the bankruptcy proceeding and ended an emergency stay motion as moot.
William B. Abrams, the parties to his adversary proceeding—including PG&E Corporation, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, the Fire Victim Trust, and the Trust’s oversight committee and trustees—and Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali’s continued handling of the proceeding.
What happened
In Abrams v. PG&E Corporation, William B. Abrams, representing himself, asked to move his adversary proceeding from Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali to another bankruptcy judge. The proceeding concerns allegations about the Fire Victim Trust and compensation for fire victims.
The court treated the request as one to withdraw the proceeding from the bankruptcy court. It found that Abrams had not shown that withdrawal was required or would promote efficient case administration. The court also rejected his concerns about Judge Montali’s impartiality as a proper basis for withdrawal or transfer.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied the motion to transfer, terminated the emergency motion to stay the proceeding as moot, and directed the Clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Abrams v. PG&E Corporation · No. 4:25-cv-06026
- Haywood Gilliam
- Aug. 26, 2025
Background
William B. Abrams, who was representing himself, filed an adversary proceeding against PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, the Fire Victim Trust, the Trust’s oversight committee, and current and former trustees. Abrams alleged that the Fire Victim Trust, created under the confirmed bankruptcy plan, had undercompensated him and other fire victims.
Abrams moved to transfer the adversary proceeding from Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali to another judge in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California. Although he called the request a motion to transfer, he relied on 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), which allows a district court to withdraw a proceeding from the bankruptcy court’s authority. Abrams also raised concerns about the appearance of impartiality because Judge Montali had confirmed the bankruptcy plan and had previously denied a motion seeking his recusal. Abrams stated that he was not seeking reconsideration or further recusal at that time.
Legal standard
The court explained that withdrawal can be mandatory or permissive. Mandatory withdrawal applies when resolving the proceeding requires interpreting both bankruptcy law and other federal laws regulating interstate commerce. Permissive withdrawal may be granted for cause, considering factors such as efficient use of judicial resources, delay and costs, consistent bankruptcy administration, and prevention of forum shopping.
Ruling
The court denied the motion to transfer. It held that Abrams had not explained why mandatory or permissive withdrawal was appropriate and had not met his burden. The court found that the proceeding would not require interpretation, rather than merely application, of non-bankruptcy laws. It also found that permissive withdrawal would inefficiently use judicial resources and harm consistent bankruptcy administration.
The court was not persuaded by Abrams’s concerns about Judge Montali’s alleged bias or prior rulings. It stated that disagreement with Judge Montali’s earlier rulings and a preference for another judge were not proper grounds for withdrawing the proceeding or transferring it to another judge, assuming the district court had authority to make such a transfer.
The court also terminated the emergency motion to stay the adversary proceeding as moot and directed the Clerk to close the case.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.