FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 07 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM, a No. 12-60019
California Local Health Care District,
BAP No. 11-1100
Debtor,
MEMORANDUM*
VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM
RETIREMENT PLAN; VALLEY
HEALTH SYSTEM; VINAY M. RAO,
Trustee of the Valley Health System
Retirement Plan; MICHELE BIRD,
Trustee of the Valley Health System
Retirement Plan; JOEL BERGENFELD,
Trustee of the Valley Health System
Retirement Plan,
Appellants,
v.
PEGGY KIRTON; DIANA AGNELLO,
Appellees.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Hollowell, Pappas, and Markell, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Argued and Submitted February 5, 2014
Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and BURRELL, Senior
District Judge.**
Appellants—Valley Health System, Valley Health Retirement Plan, and
trustees of the Retirement Plan—appeal a Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP)
decision that reversed the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of a mandamus petition
filed against Appellants. As the facts and procedural history are familiar to the
parties, we do not recite them here except as necessary to explain our disposition.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1), and we reverse.
Appellees—former Valley Health System employees and retirement plan
participants—filed a mandamus petition in state court seeking to enforce their
alleged rights under the Valley Health Retirement Plan. The mandamus petition
was filed after the bankruptcy court had confirmed Valley Health System’s
Chapter 9 bankruptcy plan. Appellants removed the case from state court to
bankruptcy court, and the bankruptcy court dismissed the mandamus petition for
failure to state a claim. The bankruptcy court subsequently denied Appellees’
motion for reconsideration. Appellees appealed the bankruptcy court’s decisions
**
The Honorable Garland E. Burrell, Jr., Senior District Judge for the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, sitting by designation.
-2-
to the BAP. The BAP ruled that the bankruptcy court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction over the mandamus petition, and thus vacated the bankruptcy court’s
dismissal of the mandamus petition. The BAP remanded the matter to the
bankruptcy court with instructions to remand the mandamus petition to the state
court. In re Valley Health System, 471 B.R. 555, 569 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2012).
“Bankruptcy courts have subject matter jurisdiction over proceedings
‘arising under title 11, or arising in or related to cases under title 11.’” In re
Wilshire Courtyard, 729 F.3d 1279, 1285 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting 28 U.S.C.
§ 1334(b)). We conclude that the BAP erred in holding that the bankruptcy court
did not have “related to” jurisdiction. See Valley Health System, 471 B.R. at 567-
68.
After a bankruptcy plan has been confirmed, a bankruptcy court has “related
to” jurisdiction over proceedings that have “a close nexus to the bankruptcy plan or
proceeding.” In re Pegasus Gold Corp., 394 F.3d 1189, 1194 (9th Cir. 2005)
(quoting In re Resorts Int’l, Inc., 372 F.3d 154, 166 (3d Cir. 2004)). A close nexus
exists where a “matter[] affect[s] the interpretation, implementation,
consummation, execution, or administration of the confirmed plan.” In re Wilshire
Courtyard, 729 F.3d 1279, 1287 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
-3-
Here, the confirmed bankruptcy plan provides that:
[Retirement plan participants] shall have no recourse to
[Valley Health System] or to any assets of [Valley Health
System], and shall not be entitled to receive any
distributions under this [bankruptcy] Plan. Instead, all
unallocated amounts held . . . pursuant to the VHS
Retirement Plan . . . will continue to be made available to
provide retirement benefits for participants in the manner
indicated under the provisions of the VHS Retirement
Plan . . . . Accordingly, the treatment of [retirement plan
participants] set forth herein shall not affect any legal,
equitable or contractual rights to which [they] are
entitled.”
The resolution of Appellees’ mandamus petition would “affect[] the
interpretation [and] implementation . . . of the confirmed plan.” Wilshire, 729 F.3d
at 1289 (quoting Pegasus Gold Corp., 394 F.3d at 1194). Resolution of the
mandamus petition would require a court to determine whether the confirmed
bankruptcy plan discharged Appellees’ claims—whether Appellees have any
“recourse to [Valley Health System] or to any of [its] assets.” Thus, there is a
close nexus between the bankruptcy plan and the mandamus petition.
Furthermore, a close nexus also exists where a proceeding requires
interpretation of an order confirming a bankruptcy plan. Wilshire, 729 F.3d at
1289. Here, the confirmation order provides that:
-4-
All entities that have, hold or may hold claims arising
prior to the Effective Date . . . are permanently enjoined,
from and after the Effective Date, from (a) commencing
or continuing, in any manner, any action or other
proceeding of any kind with respect to any such pre-
Effective Date claim or cause of action against [Valley
Health System] . . . that would . . . delay or impede the
full implementation of the Plan, [and] (b) enforcing,
attaching, collecting, or recovering by any manner or
means any judgment, award, decree or order against
[Valley Health System] with respect to such pre-
Effective Date claims or causes of action . . . .
The resolution of Appellees’ mandamus petition requires interpretation of
the confirmation order. A court would need to determine whether the bankruptcy
court’s confirmation order enjoins Appellees from continuing their mandamus
action. Thus, there is a close nexus between the bankruptcy plan and the
mandamus petition.
Appellees’ reliance on In re Ray, 624 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2010), is
misplaced. In Ray, we held that the bankruptcy court lacked “related to”
jurisdiction where, after a bankruptcy case closed, a plaintiff challenged a debtor’s
sale of real property that had been approved by the bankruptcy court. Id. at 1129.
The plaintiff alleged breach of first refusal rights. Id. We reasoned that the
bankruptcy court did not have “related to” jurisdiction over the dispute because the
“breach of contract action . . . could have existed entirely apart from the
-5-
bankruptcy proceeding.” Id. at 1135. In other words, “[t]he dispute in Ray . . . did
not involve ‘implementation and execution of [the bankruptcy plan].’” Wilshire,
729 F.3d at 1288 (quoting Ray, 624 F.3d at 1134). Unlike in Ray, here, a court
must interpret the bankruptcy plan and confirmation order to determine whether
Appellees’ claims were discharged or Appellees are enjoined from bringing suit.
Thus, the bankruptcy court retained “related to” jurisdiction over Appellees’
mandamus petition.1
Because the BAP addressed only jurisdiction and did not address any of the
substantive issues that Appellees raised on appeal from the bankruptcy court, we
REVERSE and REMAND with instructions that the BAP determine all of the
remaining substantive issues raised on appeal from the bankruptcy court.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
1
Because we conclude that the bankruptcy court retained “related to”
jurisdiction over Appellees’ mandamus petition, we need not reach the parties’
arguments concerning other bases of jurisdiction. Cf. Wilshire, 729 F.3d at 1285
n.5.
-6-