Horton v. PG&E Corporation
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:22-cv-06367
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Horton v. PG&E Corporation, Judge Gilliam dismissed the appeal because Horton filed it after the bankruptcy appeal deadline.
Ricky-Dean Horton’s appeal from the bankruptcy court was terminated; PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company obtained dismissal of the appeal.
What happened
In Horton v. PG&E Corporation, Ricky-Dean Horton appealed a bankruptcy court order that disallowed and expunged his claims for damages arising from his brother’s alleged wrongful death. PG&E asked the district court to dismiss the appeal because it lacked authority to hear it.
The bankruptcy court had ruled that Horton’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations. It later denied Horton’s request to reconsider that ruling. Horton filed his notice of appeal 372 days after the order denying reconsideration, even though the deadline was 14 days after the order.
The district court granted PG&E’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, meaning it lacked legal authority to hear the appeal. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. directed the clerk to close the case and terminate the appeal.
The detailed version
- Horton v. PG&E Corporation · No. 4:22-cv-06367
- Haywood Gilliam
- Mar. 21, 2023
Background
Ricky-Dean Horton filed a claim in the underlying bankruptcy case seeking damages based on the alleged wrongful death of his brother in September 2016. The Bankruptcy Court ruled that Horton’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations and disallowed and expunged them. Horton asked the Bankruptcy Court to reconsider that order, but it denied his request on October 7, 2021.
Horton later filed several documents suggesting that the order denying reconsideration was improper. He ultimately filed a notice of appeal on October 14, 2022. PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, referred to collectively in the opinion as PG&E, moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction means the court’s legal authority to decide the matter.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied Bankruptcy Rule 8002(a)(1), which requires a notice of appeal to be filed within 14 days after the bankruptcy court enters the order being appealed. The court stated that this deadline is mandatory and jurisdictional. Because Horton filed his notice of appeal 372 days after the order denying reconsideration—and 358 days after the deadline—his appeal was untimely.
The court acknowledged that Horton disagreed with the Bankruptcy Court’s findings, but explained that this disagreement did not justify extending the appeal deadline. Because the late filing deprived the district court of jurisdiction, the court did not reach the merits of Horton’s underlying claims or the Bankruptcy Court’s statute-of-limitations ruling.
Disposition
The court granted PG&E’s motion to dismiss. It directed the clerk to close the case and terminate the appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.