In Re: Steven Suraj Vachani
Filing
17
Order Denying Motion for Withdrawal of Reference. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 8/31/17. (lhklc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/31/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
FACEBOOK, INC.,
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
Case No. 17-CV-03184-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
WITHDRAWAL OF REFERENCE
Re: Dkt. No. 1
15
STEVEN SURAJ VACHANI,
Defendant.
16
17
The instant case arises from the motion of Plaintiff Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) to
18
19
withdraw the reference to bankruptcy of Adversary Proceeding No. 13-4226 against Defendant
20
Steven Vachani (“Vachani”), which is now pending before Bankruptcy Judge Roger L. Efremsky.
21
Civ. ECF No. 1-1. 1 Pursuant to Bankruptcy Local Rule 5011-2(b), upon filing of the motion for
22
withdrawal of reference in the Bankruptcy Court, the motion was assigned a new civil case
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
In the instant order, the Court refers to docket entries from four separate cases. The Court refers
to docket entries in the case Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc., Case No. 08-CV-05780, as
“Power ECF No. X.” The Court refers to docket entries in the underlying bankruptcy, In re
Vachani, Case No. 12-47150, as “Bankr. ECF No. X.” The Court refers to docket entries in the
Adversary Proceeding, Facebook, Inc. v. Vachani, Adv. Proc. No. 13-04226, as “Adv. ECF No.
X.” Finally, the Court refers to docket entries in the instant civil case assigned after filing of the
motion for withdrawal of reference, Facebook, Inc. v. Vachani, Case No. 17-CV-03184, as “Civ.
ECF No. X.”
1
Case No. 17-CV-03184-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF REFERENCE
1
number in the District Court and assigned to the undersigned judge. Having considered the
2
briefing of the parties, the relevant law, and the record in the instant case and all related cases, the
3
Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for withdrawal of reference.
4
I.
5
6
BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
The instant case is related to the case Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc. (“Power
Ventures”), No. 08-CV-05780. The instant case and the Power Ventures case share the same
8
factual background. Facebook owns and operates the social networking website located at
9
facebook.com. Power ECF No. 9, ¶ 2. Power Ventures (“Power”) is a corporation incorporated in
10
the Cayman Islands and doing business in California. Id. ¶ 10. At the times relevant to the instant
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
7
case and the Power Ventures case, Power has operated the website www.power.com, which
12
offered to integrate users’ various social media accounts into a single experience. Id. Vachani is
13
the Chief Executive Officer of power.com. Power Ventures Answer ¶ 11.
14
In December 2008, Facebook brought against Power and Vachani (“Power Ventures
15
Defendants”) the Power Ventures case, which alleges violations of the Controlling the Assault of
16
Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (“CANSPAM Act”), 15 U.S.C § 7701; the
17
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1030; California Penal Code § 502; and
18
the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), 17 U.S.C. § 1201; copyright infringement
19
under 17 U.S.C. § 101; trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 and 1125(a) and under
20
California law; and violations of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200. Power
21
ECF Nos. 1, 9. Facebook complained that the Power Ventures Defendants employed Facebook’s
22
proprietary data without its permission by inducing Facebook users to provide their login
23
information and then using that information to “scrape” Facebook’s proprietary material. Power
24
ECF No. 9, ¶¶ 49, 50, 52. The Power Ventures Defendants then displayed Facebook’s material on
25
power.com. Id. ¶ 52. Facebook asserts that it never gave the Power Ventures Defendants
26
permission to use its material in this way. Id. ¶ 54.
27
28
Facebook also accuses the Power Ventures Defendants of sending unsolicited and
2
Case No. 17-CV-03184-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF REFERENCE
1
deceptive email messages to Facebook users. Power FAC ¶¶ 65-69. To launch their site, the
2
Power Ventures Defendants promised power.com users a chance to win $100 if they invited and
3
signed up the most new users to the Power Ventures Defendants’ site. Id. ¶ 65. The Power
4
Ventures Defendants provided to their users a list of the users’ Facebook friends from which the
5
users could choose people to whom to send the invitation. Id. ¶ 66. Power.com sent commercial
6
emails to those friends that included on the “from” line a “@facebookmail.com” address. Id. ¶¶
7
66, 68. The content of the message included a line that the message was from “The Facebook
8
Team.” Id. ¶ 69, 70. Facebook contends that it never gave permission to send these messages and
9
that the emails were deceptive because they “do not properly identify the initiators of the
messages, nor do they provide clear or conspicuous notice that the messages are advertisements
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
for” power.com. Id. ¶ 71. The Court initially entered judgment in the Power Ventures case on
12
September 25, 2013. Power ECF No. 374. After remand from the Ninth Circuit, the Court entered
13
a revised judgment in the Power Ventures case on May 2, 2017. Power ECF No. 437.
14
As discussed below, during the pendency of the Power Ventures case, Vachani filed for
15
personal bankruptcy on August 27, 2012. Bankr. ECF No. 1; Power Ventures ECF Nos. 353–54.
16
As part of that bankruptcy, Facebook filed the adversary proceeding at issue here, which alleged
17
that the debt that Vachani owed Facebook as a result of the judgment in the Power Ventures case
18
was nondischargeable. Adv. ECF No. 1. On May 30, 2017, Facebook filed the instant motion for
19
withdrawal of reference of the adversary proceeding. Adv. ECF No. 36.
20
B. Relevant Procedural History of Power Ventures
21
On December 30, 2008, Facebook filed the complaint in the Power Ventures case. Power
22
ECF No. 1. On January 13, 2009, Facebook filed a First Amended Complaint. Power ECF No. 9.
23
On February 18, 2011, Judge Ware granted the parties’ stipulation to dismiss Facebook’s DMCA
24
claim, copyright and trademark infringement claims, and claims for violations of California
25
Business and Professions Code Section 17200. Power ECF No. 97. On May 9, 2011, Defendants
26
moved for summary judgment on Facebook’s CFAA, Section 502, and CAN-SPAM Act claims.
27
Power Ventures ECF No. 98. On November 17, 2011, Facebook moved for summary judgment on
28
3
Case No. 17-CV-03184-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF REFERENCE
1
Facebook’s § 502 and CFAA claims. Power ECF No. 214 (“§ 502/CFAA Motion”). On
2
November 18, 2011, Facebook moved for summary judgment on Facebook’s CAN-SPAM Act
3
claim. Power ECF No. 215. On February 16, 2012, Judge Ware issued an order denying
4
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment in Facebook’s favor
5
as to Facebook’s § 502, CFAA, and CAN-SPAM Act claims. Power ECF No. 275 (“February 16,
6
2012 order”).
7
In the February 16, 2012 order, Judge Ware requested additional briefing regarding
8
Vachani’s individual liability and the amount of damages Facebook should receive in light of the
9
February 16, 2012 order. Id. at 19. On April 17, 2012, Facebook filed its supplemental brief
regarding damages and the liability of Vachani. Power ECF No. 299 (“Facebook
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Damages/Liability Brief”). On August 15, 2012, Vachani submitted a supplemental brief
12
regarding damages and Vachani’s personal liability. Power ECF No. 317.
13
On August 27, 2012, Defendants provided notice that both Power and Vachani had filed
14
for bankruptcy. ECF Nos. 323, 324. Noting that pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1), a voluntary
15
petition for bankruptcy operates as an automatic stay of any judicial actions involving the
16
petitioners, Judge Ware stayed the proceedings and administratively closed the case on August 29,
17
2012. ECF No. 325.
18
On March 20, 2013, Facebook notified the Court that the Bankruptcy Court had dismissed
19
Power’s bankruptcy case and had granted Facebook’s request for relief from the automatic stay in
20
Vachani’s bankruptcy case. Power ECF No. 327. Facebook sought to reopen the Power Ventures
21
case. Id. Facebook also sought reassignment to a new judge because on August 31, 2012, while
22
the automatic stay was in effect, Judge Ware resigned from the bench. Id. On April 8, 2013, the
23
undersigned judge, as the Duty Judge at the time Facebook filed its motion, granted Facebook’s
24
request. Power ECF No. 328. The undersigned judge ordered that the stay be lifted, the case be
25
reopened, and the case be reassigned. Id. The case then was reassigned to the undersigned judge.
26
Power ECF No. 329.
27
28
On April 25, 2013, Vachani moved for clarification of Judge Ware’s February 16, 2012
4
Case No. 17-CV-03184-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF REFERENCE
1
order regarding whether Vachani’s liability had been determined in the February 16, 2012 order.
2
Power Ventures ECF No. 332. On April 29, 2013, the Power Defendants filed a case management
3
statement in which they stated their intent to request leave to file a motion for reconsideration of
4
the February 16, 2012 order. Power ECF No. 334. In Facebook’s and the Power Defendants’
5
respective case management statements filed on April 29, 2013, the parties acknowledged that
6
Vachani’s liability and the issues of damages and injunctive relief still needed to be addressed.
7
Power ECF No. 333, 334.
8
On May 2, 2013, following a case management conference, the Court issued a case
management order. Power ECF No. 340. In that order, the Court clarified that the February 16,
10
2012 order did not decide Vachani’s liability. Id. The Court also set a briefing schedule for the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
damages and injunctive relief issues. Id. The Court set a hearing date of September 26, 2013 to
12
consider Vachani’s liability and the issue of remedies. Id.
13
On August 1, 2013, Power filed its request for leave to file a motion to reconsider Judge
14
Ware’s February 16, 2012 order. Power ECF No. 353. On August 1, 2013, Facebook filed its
15
supplemental memorandum in support of its request for injunctive relief. ECF No. 354 (“Facebook
16
Injunction Brief”). On September 25, 2013, Facebook filed a supplemental motion for a
17
permanent injunction. Power ECF No. 369.
18
On August 7, 2013, Magistrate Judge Spero issued an order requiring Vachani to pay
19
Facebook $39,796.73 as a discovery sanction because of Vachani’s noncompliance during a Rule
20
30(b)(6) deposition. Power ECF No. 356. Specifically, Judge Spero found that Vachani “was not
21
prepared for his Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, read from [a prepared] declaration, and was
22
‘argumentative’ and ‘evasive.’” Id. at 5. In the same order, Judge Spero noted that Defendants had
23
committed another discovery violation by failing to timely disclose relevant emails. Id. Following
24
Judge Spero’s order, Vachani immediately appealed the discovery sanction to the Ninth Circuit on
25
September 6, 2013. Power ECF No. 360. Despite the appeal, this Court retained jurisdiction over
26
aspects of the case unrelated to the discovery sanctions.
27
28
On September 25, 2013, the Court filed an Order Denying Leave to File Motion for
5
Case No. 17-CV-03184-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF REFERENCE
1
Reconsideration, Finding Defendant Steven Vachani Liable as a Matter of Law, and Granting
2
Damages and Permanent Injunctive Relief. Power ECF No. 373. In the order, the Court first found
3
that Defendants had not identified any new material facts, changes in law, or issues that Judge
4
Ware manifestly failed to consider in his February 16, 2012 order. The Court therefore denied
5
leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the February 16, 2012 order. Id. at 15. The Court also
6
found that because Vachani directed and authorized the activities at issue, Vachani was personally
7
liable for violations of the CAN-SPAM Act, CFAA, and California Penal Code § 502 along with
8
Power. Id. at 17.
9
The Court then addressed the issue of damages for the first time. The Court noted that
under the CAN-SPAM Act, Facebook was entitled to elect between statutory damages and
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
monetary damages in the amount of actual losses. Id. at 22. Facebook elected to recover statutory
12
damages, and the Court ordered Defendants to pay $50 for each of 60,627 spam messages sent, for
13
a total of $3,031,350. Id. at 25–26. The Court then held that Facebook was entitled to
14
compensatory damages under the CFAA. The Court held that “Facebook has established through
15
undisputed testimony that it expended $80,543 to investigate Defendants’ actions and for outside
16
legal services in connection with the Defendants’ actions.” Id. at 26.
17
Finally, the Court issued a permanent injunction against Defendants that enjoined
18
Defendants from (1) making any misleading statement in advertising, including statements that
19
Facebook had authorized a particular communication; (2) accessing Facebook’s website or servers
20
“for any purpose” without Facebook’s prior permission; (3) using any data obtained from the
21
unlawful conduct; and (4) developing or using any software to commit the illegal acts alleged in
22
the complaint. Id. at 33–34. The injunction also required Defendants to destroy all the software at
23
issue, destroy all data obtained from Facebook with the illegal software, and take measures to
24
ensure that the injunction was obeyed. Id. at 34. The Court entered judgment against the Power
25
Defendants the same day, September 25, 2013. Power ECF No. 374.
26
On October 23, 2013, Defendants appealed the Court’s grant of summary judgment. Power
27
ECF No. 379. On November 21, 2013, the Ninth Circuit dismissed Vachani’s appeal of Magistrate
28
6
Case No. 17-CV-03184-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF REFERENCE
1
Judge Spero’s August 7, 2013 order granting discovery sanctions because the August 7, 2013
2
order was not final or appealable. Power ECF No. 386.2
3
On December 9, 2016, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part this Court’s
4
grant of summary judgment. Power ECF No. 401. The Ninth Circuit reversed the Court’s finding
5
that Defendants had violated the CAN-SPAM Act because the Ninth Circuit found that Facebook
6
initiated the email messages at issue and that the sender of the messages was not materially
7
misleading within the meaning of the CAN-SPAM Act. Id. at 9–13. The Ninth Circuit then held
8
that Defendants had violated CFAA, but only for the period “after receiving written notification
9
from Facebook on December 1, 2008.” Id. at 19. The Ninth Circuit held that by sending the
December 1, 2008 notification, Facebook revoked Defendants’ permission to use Facebook’s
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
computers. Id.
With respect to damages, the Ninth Circuit held that “[i]t is undisputed that Facebook
12
13
employees spent many hours, totaling more than $5,000 in costs, analyzing, investigating, and
14
responding to Power’s actions.” Id. at 14. However, in light of the Ninth Circuit’s finding that the
15
violation began only after Facebook sent its cease and desist letter on December 1, 2008, the Ninth
16
Circuit remanded to “calculate damages only for the period after Power received the cease and
17
desist letter . . . .” Id. at 22.
After remand, the Court held a case management conference on February 15, 2017. At the
18
19
case management conference, the Court set a briefing schedule for the remanded issue of
20
remedies. ECF No. 410. The Court also ordered Defendants to pay by March 15, 2017 the
21
$39,796.73 discovery sanction that the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
22
On May 2, 2017, after briefing on the issue was complete, the Court ruled on the remanded
23
issue of damages. Power ECF No. 435. The Court found that Facebook was entitled to $79,640.50
24
in compensatory damages. This figure did not include the $3,031,350 in CAN-SPAM damages
25
26
27
28
2
Although the Ninth Circuit dismissed Vachani’s earlier appeal of Magistrate Judge Spero’s
August 7, 2013 order granting discovery sanctions, Power ECF No. 386, the Ninth Circuit later
affirmed the discovery sanction in its December 9, 2016 order, Power ECF No. 401.
7
Case No. 17-CV-03184-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF REFERENCE
1
that were reversed by the Ninth Circuit. This figure also did not include $902.50 in damages
2
incurred on or before December 1, 2008, when Facebook sent the cease and desist letter. Instead,
3
this figure reflected only the damages incurred by Facebook after December 1, 2008 in responding
4
to Defendants’ CFAA violation. The Court also issued a permanent injunction against Defendants
5
that was narrowly tailored to Defendants’ CFAA violation. Finally, the Court again ordered
6
Defendants to pay the $39,796.73 discovery sanction and denied Defendants’ May 1, 2017 motion
7
to stay. Id. at 31. The Court issued a judgment on May 2, 2017. Power ECF No. 437.
On May 16, 2017, Facebook filed a motion for attorney’s fees and motion for contempt
8
9
sanctions. Power Ventures ECF Nos. 446–47. The Court ruled on these motions on August 8,
2017. Power Ventures ECF No. 470. The Court granted Facebook’s motion for attorney’s fees and
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
found that Vachani and Power are jointly and severally liable for the $145,028.40 attorney’s fee
12
award. Id. at 28. The Court also found that Power and Vachani, in his capacity as CEO of Power,
13
were in contempt of Court for their ongoing failure to pay the $39,796.73 discovery sanction. The
14
Court therefore ordered that after a five-day grace period, for each day that Power does not pay the
15
$39,796.73 discovery sanction, $100 would be added to the amount owed. Id.
16
C. Relevant Procedural History of Underlying Bankruptcy
Defendant first filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy on August 27, 2012. Bankr. ECF No. 1. In
17
18
the bankruptcy case, Facebook made a claim for the debt Vachani owed to Facebook based on
19
Judge Ware’s February 16, 2012 grant of summary judgment in the Power Ventures case,
20
although this order did not set the amount Vachani owed. Bankr. ECF No. 38. On October 18,
21
2012, Defendant moved the Bankruptcy Court to set the amount Vachani owed to Facebook
22
arising from the February 16, 2012 grant of summary judgment in Power Ventures. Bankr. ECF
23
No. 63. The Bankruptcy Court denied this motion on December 13, 2012 and held that it would be
24
more appropriate for the District Court to determine Vachani’s personal liability for the judgment
25
in Power Ventures and thus determine the amount of Vachani’s debt to Facebook. Bankr. ECF No.
26
98.
27
28
On January 16, 2013, Vachani filed an objection to Facebook’s claim. Bankr. ECF No.
8
Case No. 17-CV-03184-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF REFERENCE
1
103. On February 13, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court granted Facebook relief from the automatic stay
2
so that the district court could set the amount Vachani owed Facebook.3 Bankr. ECF No. 122. On
3
March 27, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court overruled Vachani’s objection to Facebook’s claim. Bankr.
4
ECF No. 139.
On June 4, 2013, Facebook objected to Vachani’s amended Chapter 13 plan. Bankr. ECF
5
6
No. 167. On October 16, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court sustained Facebook’s objection and
7
dismissed Vachani’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy case. Bankr. ECF No. 181. On October 22, 2013, the
8
case was voluntarily converted from a Chapter 13 case to a Chapter 7 case. Bankr. ECF No. 183.
9
On November 22, 2013, the Chapter 7 trustee reported that “there is no property available
for distribution from the estate . . . .” Bankr. ECF Nos. 186–87. Subsequently, Vachani was issued
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
a discharge on January 22, 2014 and the case was closed on January 24, 2014. Bankr. ECF No.
12
194. However, as discussed below, despite Vachani’s discharge and the closing of the case, the
13
adversary proceeding initiated by Facebook, Facebook, Inc. v. Vachani, Adv. Proc. No. 13-04226,
14
remains pending.
15
D. Procedural History of Adversary Proceeding and the Motion to Withdraw the
Reference
16
Facebook filed an adversary proceeding related to the underlying bankruptcy case on
17
December 13, 2013. Adv. ECF No. 1. In the complaint in the adversary proceeding, Facebook
18
alleges that Vachani’s debt to Facebook was nondischargeable in Vachani’s Chapter 7 case on
19
several grounds, including willful and malicious injury, false pretenses, false representation, and
20
actual fraud. Id.
21
Vachani filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement, on
22
January 6, 2014. Adv. ECF No. 7. After briefing was complete, the Bankruptcy Court continued
23
the hearing on Vachani’s motion several times pending the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of the appeal
24
of the September 25, 2013 judgment in the Power Ventures case. See, e.g., Adv. ECF Nos. 25, 28,
25
26
27
28
3
As discussed above, the Court made this determination in an order and judgment filed on
September 25, 2013. Power ECF Nos. 373, 374.
9
Case No. 17-CV-03184-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF REFERENCE
1
30, 32, 34. The Ninth Circuit issued its mandate on December 9, 2016. Power ECF No. 401. On
2
May 30, 2017, more than three years after the complaint was filed in the adversary proceeding,
3
Facebook filed the instant motion for withdrawal of reference. Adv. ECF No. 36.
4
On June 2, 2017, the documents associated with the instant motion were transferred to the
5
District Court under a new civil case number, pursuant to Bankruptcy Local Rule 5011-2(b). Adv.
6
ECF No. 37; Civ. ECF No. 1. On June 16, 2017, the Court granted a motion to relate the instant
7
case to Power Ventures and the instant case was therefore reassigned to the undersigned judge.
8
Civ. ECF No. 10. On June 19, 2017, Vachani filed his opposition to Facebook’s motion for
9
withdrawal of reference. Civ. ECF No. 14. On June 26, 2017, Facebook filed a reply. Civ. ECF
No. 15.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
12
District courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil proceedings arising under title 11,”
13
which is the Bankruptcy Code, as well as over cases “arising in or related to cases under title 11.”
14
28 U.S.C. § 1334(a)–(b). However, the district court's jurisdiction is not exclusive, and each
15
district court may refer such proceedings to a bankruptcy judge. 28 U.S.C. § 157(a); see also Sec.
16
Farms v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffers, Warehousemen & Helpers, 124 F.3d 999, 1008 (9th
17
Cir. 1997). In the Northern District of California, all cases and proceedings arising in or related to
18
a bankruptcy case are automatically referred to the Bankruptcy Court. Bankr. L.R. 5011-1(a).
19
There are two circumstances under which this automatic reference to the Bankruptcy Court
20
is withdrawn for the case to proceed in district court. First, withdrawal is mandatory “if the court
21
determines that resolution of the proceeding requires consideration of both title 11 and other laws
22
of the United States regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce.” 28
23
U.S.C. § 157(d) (emphasis added). In other words, withdrawal is required “in cases requiring
24
material consideration of non-bankruptcy federal law.” Sec. Farms, 124 F.3d at 1008. While the
25
Ninth Circuit has not further defined what constitutes “material consideration of non-bankruptcy
26
federal law,” other courts have found that mandatory withdrawal is proper only where the question
27
of non-bankruptcy federal law “require[s] the interpretation, as opposed to mere application, of the
28
10
Case No. 17-CV-03184-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF REFERENCE
1
non-title 11 statute.” Matter of Vicars Ins. Agency, Inc., 96 F.3d 949, 954 (7th Cir. 1996); see also
2
In re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc., 922 F.2d 984, 995 (2d Cir.1990) (“[Mandatory withdrawal] is
3
reserved for cases where substantial and material consideration of non-Bankruptcy Code federal
4
statutes is necessary for the resolution of the proceeding.”); In re Tamalpais Bancorp, 451 B.R. 6,
5
8 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (collecting cases).
Second, withdrawal may be permissive. “[T]he district court may withdraw, in whole or in
6
7
part, any case or proceeding . . . on timely motion of any party, for cause shown.” 28 U.S.C. §
8
157(d). “In determining whether cause exists, a district court should consider the efficient use of
9
judicial resources, delay and costs to the parties, uniformity of bankruptcy administration, the
prevention of forum shopping, and other related factors.” Sec. Farms, 124 F.3d at 1008. For either
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
permissive or mandatory withdrawal, “[t]he burden of persuasion is on the party seeking
12
withdrawal.” In re Tamalpais, 451 B.R. at 8.
13
III.
14
DISCUSSION
As discussed above, the instant case concerns an adversary proceeding in which Facebook
15
seeks a determination that Vachani’s debt to Facebook, which Vachani incurred based on the
16
judgment in the Power Ventures case, is not dischargeable in Vachani’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
17
Facebook seeks to withdraw the reference to bankruptcy so that this Court, rather than the
18
Bankruptcy Court, can decide whether this debt is dischargeable.
19
Facebook concedes that mandatory withdrawal of the reference is not warranted in the
20
instant case, but Facebook argues that permissive withdrawal is warranted under 28 U.S.C. §
21
157(d). Therefore, the Court considers how withdrawal will affect “the efficient use of judicial
22
resources, delay and costs to the parties, uniformity of bankruptcy administration, the prevention
23
of forum shopping, and other related factors.” Sec. Farms, 124 F.3d at 1008.
24
A. Efficiency
25
In analyzing the efficiency factor, courts first consider whether the Bankruptcy Court has
26
jurisdiction to enter final judgment for the claims at issue. See In re Rosales, 2013 WL 5962007,
27
at *5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2013) (“The efficiency inquiry requires the Court to determine whether
28
11
Case No. 17-CV-03184-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF REFERENCE
1
the Bankruptcy Court has jurisdiction to enter final judgment.”). Because bankruptcy judges are
2
not Article III judges, “the Constitution limits their ability to adjudicate—i.e., to render a final
3
judgment—to issues that are at the ‘core’ of the bankruptcy power.” In re Harris, 590 F.3d 730,
4
737 (9th Cir. 2009). For matters that are “non-core,” a bankruptcy judge may make only proposed
5
findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district judge, who reviews all non-core matters de
6
novo. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). Thus, whether the Bankruptcy Court can enter final judgment turns
7
principally on whether a claim is core or non-core. Id. § 157.
8
If a claim is not core and only the District Court can enter final judgment, efficiency
9
generally favors withdrawing the reference. Everett v. Art Brand Studios, LLC, 556 B.R. 437, 443
(N.D. Cal. 2016) (“If the claims sought to be withdrawn are non-core and the Bankruptcy Court
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
can not enter final judgment, then efficiency generally favors withdrawing the reference.”). In
12
contrast, if a claim is a core claim, then the Bankruptcy Court can enter final judgment on its own
13
and efficiency generally weighs against withdrawing the reference. Shawmut Bank Connecticut,
14
Nat. Ass’n v. Lawrence, 209 B.R. 588, 590 (N.D.N.Y. 1997) (“[T]he Court finds that Plaintiff
15
seeks to withdraw a core matter from the Bankruptcy Court. This finding weighs against
16
withdrawing the reference . . . .”).
17
In the instant case, the adversary proceeding at issue relates to the dischargeability of
18
Vachani’s debt to Facebook, which arose from the judgment in the Power Ventures case.
19
Facebook concedes that this is a core proceeding. Indeed, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) specifically lists
20
“determinations as to the dischargeability of particular debts” as core matters. Thus, the
21
Bankruptcy Court can enter final judgment in the adversary proceeding in the instant case, and this
22
fact weighs against withdrawing the reference.
23
Although Facebook concedes that the adversary proceeding it seeks to withdraw is core
24
and that the Bankruptcy Court can enter final judgment on this matter, Facebook nevertheless
25
argues that the efficiency factor weighs in favor of withdrawing the reference. In the complaint in
26
the adversary proceeding, Facebook alleges that Vachani’s debt to Facebook is nondischargeable
27
in Vachani’s Chapter 7 case on several grounds, including willful and malicious injury, false
28
12
Case No. 17-CV-03184-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF REFERENCE
1
pretenses, false representation, and actual fraud. Adv. ECF No. 1. Facebook argues that these
2
grounds are established by “facts found by the District Court to have been admitted by Mr.
3
Vachani or otherwise not genuinely in dispute” in the Power Ventures case. Adv. ECF No. 8, at 2.
4
Thus, because Facebook’s nondischargeability argument is based on statements in this Court’s
5
orders, Facebook argues that it would be more efficient for this Court to determine the
6
dischargeability of Vachani’s debt in the first instance. Civ. ECF No. 1-30, at 7 (arguing that
7
withdrawal is warranted because determining dischargeability requires “interpret[ing], and
8
determin[ing] nuances and subtleties in, multiple orders of this Court”).
However, withdrawing the bankruptcy reference for the adversary proceeding would be
9
inefficient in a number of ways. Most importantly, the Bankruptcy Court has greater expertise in
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
bankruptcy law and its application to the instant case. See In re Kaiser, 722 F.2d 1574, 1581 (2d
12
Cir. 1983) (“There should be at least one adjudication made by a judge with expertise in
13
bankruptcy law. There is no assurance that a better initial determination would be made by a
14
district court.”). This expertise is particularly relevant because the instant case involves a “core”
15
bankruptcy proceeding that is “properly within the Bankruptcy Court’s competence.” In re
16
Rosales, 2013 WL 5962007, at *7.
Additionally, according to Facebook, the facts underlying the adversary proceeding are not
17
18
seriously disputed and can be determined simply by reading the text of this Court’s orders. See
19
Adv. ECF No. 8, at 2 (arguing that complaint in adversary proceeding is based on “facts found by
20
the District Court to have been admitted by Mr. Vachani or otherwise not genuinely in dispute”).
21
Indeed, in Facebook’s opposition to Vachani’s motion to dismiss the complaint in the adversary
22
proceeding, Facebook provided the Bankruptcy Court with precise citations to all the relevant
23
facts with the page and line numbers of the orders establishing those facts. Id. at 3–4. There are
24
only thirteen such facts that Facebook identifies, and these facts relate only to the relatively
25
straightforward circumstances that gave rise to the Power Ventures litigation. Specifically,
26
Facebook argues that the nondischargeability of Vachani’s debt is established by the following
27
facts:
28
13
Case No. 17-CV-03184-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF REFERENCE
A. Facebook notified Mr. Vachani that it appeared Power was obtaining
unauthorized access to Facebook's website and servers. Facebook implemented
technical measures to block Power’s access to Facebook. 2012 Order 3:6-9.
1
2
B. Mr. Vachani then intentionally circumvented those barriers that were intended
to prevent his access to information on Facebook's website. 2012 Order 17:3-5,
2013 Order 18:10–14
3
4
C. Once improperly by those barriers, Mr. Vachani obtained information and data
from Facebook, without Facebook’s permission. 2012 Order 17:3-5; 17:14–15;
18:3–5, 2013 Order 11:18–21; 19:5–10.
5
6
D. Mr. Vachani took, copied and made use of Facebook’s data. 2013 Order
19:22–20:8.
7
8
E. Mr. Vachani created a software program that was intended by him to, and did,
deceive Facebook, by causing Facebook’s servers to send emails that appear to
have originated from Facebook. Mr. Vachani designed the software program to
have the effect that it did. 2012 Order 11:12–19.
9
10
F. Mr. Vachani thereby caused Facebook's servers to send at least tens of
thousands of unsolicited commercial electronic mail messages, with header
information and sender identification that falsely and deceptively identified the
sender as Facebook. The messages were misleading. 2012 Order 3:3-6; 14:1–4
2013 Order 16:11–16.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
G. These acts were committed by Mr. Vachani not only deliberately and
intentionally, but also knowingly and willfully. 2013 Order 24:2–3.
14
15
H. The most serious harm of such activities is to the operators of live websites
that, as a natural consequence of these activities, have to expend funds to stop the
activities and deal with customer complaints. 2012 Order 6:20–7:7.
16
17
I. Facebook expended significant resources to block Mr. Vachani's and Power's
spamming activity. 2012 Order 9:10–11.
18
J. Facebook suffered adverse effects as a consequence of Mr. Vachani' s actions
and his false and misleading information. 2012 Order 14:1–4; 2013 Order 28:4.
19
20
K. Mr. Vachani caused irreparable harm to Facebook's goodwill with its users.
2013 Order 28:10–12.
21
L. These actions violated multiple federal statutes and the California Penal Code.
2013 Order 11:17–21; 16:17–17:2.
22
23
M. As redress for the above-described acts, Mr. Vachani must pay Face book
statutory damages of $3,031,350, plus $80,543 compensatory damages. 2013
Order 25:9–11; 26:9–12.
24
25
See Adv. ECF No. 8, at 3–4.4
26
27
28
4
As this quoted excerpt makes clear, Facebook’s argument that this Court is better placed to
interpret its own orders is undermined by the fact that the Power Ventures case was not reassigned
14
Case No. 17-CV-03184-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF REFERENCE
1
Thus, it appears that the adversary proceeding will not focus on developing evidence and
2
deciding factual disputes, but instead will focus primarily on analyzing nuanced principles of
3
bankruptcy law and deciding how those principles apply to the relatively straightforward facts of
4
the Power Ventures case. Indeed, although Facebook’s opposition to Vachani’s motion to dismiss
5
the adversary proceeding mentions only the thirteen relatively simple facts discussed above, the
6
opposition contains extensive legal argument about the proper standard for intentionality under
7
bankruptcy law, the type of property interest that is subject to the “willful and malicious”
8
exception to dischargeability, and the five-prong test for nondischargeability based on fraud. See
9
id. at 4–8. In short, it appears that legal issues predominate over factual disputes in the adversary
10
proceeding, and the Bankruptcy Court will be able to more efficiently resolve these legal issues.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Facebook also argues that withdrawal would promote efficiency because “this Court is
12
thoroughly familiar with the Debtor’s litigation tactics.” Civ. ECF No. 1-30, at 7. However, the
13
Bankruptcy Court has presided over Vachani’s “unusually complex” bankruptcy since Vachani
14
filed his petition on August 27, 2012, and thus the Bankruptcy Court has extensive experience
15
with Vachani as a party. Bankr. ECF No. 1; Bankr. ECF No. 167, at 4 (“This [bankruptcy] case
16
has seen an extraordinary number of filings and events, including multiple defaults by the Debtor,
17
dismissal and reinstatement, many, many amendments of the sworn schedules, and many proposed
18
versions of a plan.”). Indeed, the Bankruptcy Court has longer experience with Vachani as a party
19
than the undersigned judge, to whom the Power Ventures case was reassigned on April 10, 2013.
20
Power Ventures ECF No. 329.
21
Thus, it would be more efficient in the instant case for the Bankruptcy Court to decide the
22
adversary proceeding in the first instance. As discussed above, the matter at issue is a “core” issue
23
on which the Bankruptcy Court can enter final judgment, which “weighs against withdrawing the
24
reference.” Shawmut, 209 B.R. at 590. Additionally, the Bankruptcy Court has greater expertise in
25
26
27
28
to the undersigned judge until April 10, 2013. Power ECF No. 329. In Facebook’s list of facts,
approximately half of Facebook’s citations are to the summary judgment order issued by Judge
Ware on February 16, 2012, more than a year before the Power Ventures case was reassigned to
the undersigned judge. Power ECF Nos. 275; 329.
15
Case No. 17-CV-03184-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF REFERENCE
1
bankruptcy law and has extensive experience with the parties and the facts underlying Vachani’s
2
bankruptcy. Thus, the efficiency factor weighs against withdrawing the reference.
3
B. Other Factors
The Court now addresses the other considerations relevant to permissive withdrawal:
4
5
avoiding delay, avoiding excessive costs, preventing forum shopping, and ensuring uniformity of
6
the administration of the bankruptcy estate. See Sec. Farms, 124 F.3d at 1008 (listing these
7
factors).
The Court finds that the “avoiding delay” factor weighs against withdrawing the reference.
8
9
Resolution of the adversary proceeding has already been substantially delayed by Facebook’s
motion to withdraw the reference. A motion to withdraw the reference should be made “as
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
promptly as possible in light of the developments in the bankruptcy proceeding.” Sec. Farms, 124
12
F.3d at 1007 n.3 (citing In re Baldwin-United Corp., 57 B.R. 751, 754 (S.D. Ohio 1985)).
13
Facebook filed the adversary proceeding against Vachani on December 13, 2013, but Facebook
14
waited until May 30, 2017 to file the instant motion for withdrawal of reference. Adv. ECF Nos. 1,
15
36. Facebook offers no explanation for its decision to wait to file the instant motion, and Facebook
16
does not argue that the grounds for its motion were unknown or unavailable earlier.5
Indeed, this three year delay may make Facebook’s motion untimely. See Hupp v. Educ.
17
18
Credit Mgmt. Corp., 2007 WL 2703151, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2007) (finding motion to
19
withdraw the reference untimely based on 15-month delay in filing); Laine v. Gross, 128 B.R.
20
588, 589 (D. Me.1991) (finding motion to withdraw the reference untimely because the motion
21
was filed over six months after the alleged necessity for withdrawal became apparent); Connolly v.
22
Bidermann Industries U.S.A., Inc., 1996 WL 325575, *3 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (finding that an eight
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
As discussed above, the Bankruptcy Court continued the hearing on Vachani’s motion to dismiss
the adversary proceeding several times pending the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of the appeal of the
September 25, 2013 judgment in the Power Ventures case. See, e.g., Adv. ECF Nos. 25, 28, 30,
32, 34. However, Facebook does not claim that these continuances prevented Facebook from filing
a motion to withdraw the reference. Additionally, even if this stay could explain some of
Facebook’s delay in filing the instant motion, it cannot explain all of the delay. The Ninth Circuit
issued its mandate on December 9, 2016; yet Facebook waited nearly six more months before
filing the instant motion on June 5, 2017. Power ECF No. 401; Civ. ECF No. 1.
16
Case No. 17-CV-03184-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF REFERENCE
1
month delay rendered a motion to withdraw the reference untimely); Stratton v. Vita Bella Group
2
Homes, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40562, *6–7 (E.D. Cal. May 24, 2007) (finding a motion to
3
withdraw the reference untimely after one-year delay”). However, the Court need not resolve this
4
issue because the Court finds that denial of the motion is warranted on other grounds.
5
Nevertheless, at the very least, Facebook’s unexplained delay of over three years weighs against
6
withdrawing the reference.
7
In the adversary proceeding, Vachani’s motion to dismiss is already fully briefed and ripe
8
for decision. See Adv. ECF No. 7–9 (setting original hearing date for motion to dismiss on
9
February 13, 2014). Withdrawing the reference would require this Court to set a new schedule and
become familiar with this already briefed and long-pending motion, which could result in further
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
delay. This delay would also cause further expenses for both parties. Thus, both the “undue delay”
12
and “avoiding excessive costs” factors weigh against withdrawing the reference.
13
The interest in preventing forum shopping also weighs against withdrawing the reference.
14
Because the instant case involves a “core” bankruptcy matter, both this Court and the Bankruptcy
15
Court can enter final judgment, and thus there is a possibility that Facebook’s motion could be
16
motivated by a desire to obtain a more favorable forum. Indeed, Facebook argues that withdrawal
17
of the reference is justified in part because “this Court is thoroughly familiar with the Debtor’s
18
litigation tactics, including his refusal to respond in a timely manner to this Court’s orders and
19
refusal to limit his arguments to issues this Court wants addressed.” Civ. ECF No. 1-30, at 8. This
20
argument raises the possibility that the motion for withdrawal of the reference is motivated in part
21
by Facebook’s belief that because this Court has previously ruled in favor of Facebook on other
22
matters, this Court would respond more favorably to Facebook’s argument than the Bankruptcy
23
Court. See In re Sula, Inc., 2016 WL 3090300, at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 31, 2016) (denying motion to
24
withdraw reference because “the court has serious concerns that the instant Motion is nothing
25
more than forum-shopping on the part of debtor”). Thus, in the instant case the interest in
26
preventing possible forum shopping weighs against withdrawing the reference.
27
28
Finally, the interest in “ensuring uniformity of the administration of the bankruptcy estate”
17
Case No. 17-CV-03184-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF REFERENCE
1
weighs against withdrawing the reference. Because the dischargeability of Vachani’s debt is a
2
“core” matter, “[t]he uniformity of bankruptcy administration would be adversely affected if this
3
Court were to withdraw reference with respect to a claim more properly within the Bankruptcy
4
Court’s competence.” In re Rosales, 2013 WL 5962007, at *7 (finding that uniformity factor
5
weighed against withdrawing the reference); see also In re Orion Pictures Corp., 4 F.3d 1095,
6
1101 (2d Cir. 1993) (holding that “questions of efficiency and uniformity will turn” on “whether
7
the claim is core or non-core”). As discussed above, the Bankruptcy Court has administered
8
Vachani’s bankruptcy since 2012, and thus the Bankruptcy Court is a better position to determine
9
this adversary proceeding within the context of what Facebook has called “unusually complex”
bankruptcy proceedings. Bankr. ECF No. 167, at 4 (“This [bankruptcy] case has seen an
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
extraordinary number of filings and events, including multiple defaults by the Debtor, dismissal
12
and reinstatement, many, many amendments of the sworn schedules, and many proposed versions
13
of a plan.”). Thus, given the complex history of Vachani’s bankruptcy proceeding and the
14
Bankruptcy Court’s expertise on the “core” issue involved in the adversary proceeding at issue,
15
the Court finds that the uniformity factor weighs against withdrawing the reference.
In short, all four “other factors”—avoiding delay, avoiding excessive costs, preventing
16
17
forum shopping, and ensuring uniformity of the administration of the bankruptcy estate—weigh
18
against withdrawing the reference.
19
C.
Summary
In summary, the Court finds that each of the relevant factors weighs against withdrawing
20
21
the reference. As a “core” matter, the adversary proceeding at issue is particularly within the
22
Bankruptcy Court’s competence, and Facebook has not met its burden of showing that efficiency
23
or other factors justify withdrawing the adversary proceeding to this Court. See Hupp, 2017 WL
24
2703151, at *2 (“The burden of establishing the propriety of withdrawing the reference is on the
25
party seeking withdrawal.”) (citing FTC v. First Alliance Mortgage Co., 282 B.R. 894, 902 (C.D.
26
Cal. 2001)). Thus, withdrawal of the reference is not warranted in the instant case.
27
IV.
28
CONCLUSION
18
Case No. 17-CV-03184-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF REFERENCE
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Facebook’s motion to withdraw the
1
2
reference to the Bankruptcy Court of Facebook, Inc. v. Vachani, Adv. Proc. No. 13-04226. The
3
Clerk shall close the file of the instant civil case, Facebook, Inc. v. Vachani, Case No. 17-CV-
4
03184.
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
7
8
9
Dated: August 31, 2017
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19
Case No. 17-CV-03184-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF REFERENCE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?