Weidman v. PG&E Corporation
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:22-cv-00389
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Weidman v. PG&E, Judge Gilliam granted PG&E’s motion to dismiss an untimely bankruptcy appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
The ruling ends Weidman’s appeal of the bankruptcy court’s reconsideration order and grants PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s motion to dismiss. The district court did not review the underlying bankruptcy ruling.
What happened
In Weidman v. PG&E Corporation, Weidman appealed a bankruptcy court order denying reconsideration. PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company asked the district court to dismiss the appeal.
The district court ruled that the appeal was filed 34 days after the 14-day deadline required by Bankruptcy Rule 8002. Because that deadline is jurisdictional, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, directed the clerk to close the case, and terminated the appeal.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted PG&E’s motion to dismiss. The court did not decide whether the appeal also should be dismissed for failure to prosecute because the late filing independently required dismissal.
The detailed version
- Weidman v. PG&E Corporation · No. 4:22-cv-00389
- Haywood Gilliam
- June 13, 2022
Background
William F. Weidman, III filed a notice of appeal from an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California. The order denied a motion for reconsideration. PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, collectively referred to in the opinion as PG&E, moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Applicable Rule
Bankruptcy Rule 8002(a)(1) requires a notice of appeal to be filed with the bankruptcy clerk within 14 days after entry of the order being appealed. The court stated that this deadline is mandatory and jurisdictional, meaning that missing it deprives the reviewing court of authority to consider the appeal.
Ruling
The district court found that Weidman filed his notice of appeal 34 days after the deadline. It therefore held that the appeal was untimely and had to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The court granted PG&E’s motion to dismiss, directed the clerk to close the case, and terminated the appeal.
The court also noted that the Bankruptcy Court had recommended dismissal for lack of prosecution because Weidman did not complete the appeal steps required by Bankruptcy Rule 8009. The district court did not consider that separate ground because the appeal was untimely in the first place.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.