New Meatco Provisions, LLC

1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES DIVISION
In re: ) Case No. 2:13-bk-22155-PC
)
NEW MEATCO PROVISIONS, LLC, ) Chapter 11
)
) MEMORANDUM DECISION
)
) Date: July 10, 2013
) Time: 9:30 a.m.
) Place: United States Bankruptcy Court
) Courtroom # 1468
Debtor. ) 255 East Temple Street
____________________________________) Los Angeles, CA 90012
Before the court is the Motion to Reconsider and Modify Terms of Order: (A)
Authorizing the Rejection of Certain Executory Contracts and Unexpired Leases and the
Abandonment of Personal Property Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 365 and 554; and (B) Establishing
Rejection Procedures (“Motion”) filed by ML Long Beach, LLC (“ML”). ML’s Motion is
opposed by the Debtor and Debtor in Possession, New Meatco Provisions, LLC (“New
Meatco”). Having considered the Motion and opposition thereto, the reply, the evidentiary
record, and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions
FILED & ENTERED
JUL 16 2013
CLERK U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT
Central District of California
BY DEPUTY CLERK	egarcia
Case 2:13-bk-22155-PC Doc 166 Filed 07/16/13 Entered 07/16/13 15:35:34 Desc
Main Document Page 1 of 12

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of law pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 52(a),1 as incorporated into FRBP 7052 and applied to contested
matters by FRBP 9014(c).
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
On May 8, 2013, New Meatco filed its voluntary petition under chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code in the above referenced case. Prior to the filing of the petition, New Meatco
leased certain commercial property located at 2652 Long Beach Avenue, Los Angeles, California
(“the Premises”) pursuant to a Standard Industrial Lease Agreement between ML, as lessor, and
New Meatco, as lessee, dated October 6, 2011. The term of the lease was 150 months
commencing November 1, 2011, and ending April 30, 2024. The monthly rent and other charges
under the lease were approximately $219,255. Blue Planet International, Inc. (“Blue Planet”)
subleased approximately 30,740 of the Premises from New Meatco at a base rental rate of
$11,500 per month pursuant to a Standard Sublease Multi-Tenant Agreement dated October 3,
2012. The term of the sublease was 36 months commencing November 1, 2012, and ending
October 31, 2015. New Meatco did not receive rent from Blue Planet under the sublease after
April 2013.
On April 9, 2013, ML served New Meatco with a Notice of Default alleging a failure to
pay rent due under the lease. On April 17, 2013, ML served New Meatco and Blue Planet with a
Notice to Pay Rent or Quit pursuant to C.C.P. § 1161(2). On April 23, 2013, ML filed a
complaint for unlawful detainer in Case No. BC506742, styled ML Long Beach, LLC v. New
Meatco Provisions, LLC, et al., in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. On
May 3, 2013, ML and Blue Planet executed a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment under the terms
of which Blue Planet stipulated to a judgment in favor of ML and against Blue Planet for
1 Unless otherwise indicated, all “Code,” “chapter” and “section” references are to the
Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1330 after its amendment by the Bankruptcy Abuse
Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-8, 119 Stat. 23 (2005). “Rule”
references are to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“FRBP”), which make applicable
certain Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“F.R.Civ.P.”). “LBR” references are to the Local
Bankruptcy Rules of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California
(“LBR”).
Case 2:13-bk-22155-PC Doc 166 Filed 07/16/13 Entered 07/16/13 15:35:34 Desc
Main Document Page 2 of 12

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
possession of the Premises.2 The judgment was entered in the state court action on May 10,
2013.
On May 10, 2013, New Meatco surrendered the Premises to ML in broom-clean
condition and turned over the keys to ML. According to ML, Blue Planet was still occupying a
portion of the Premises on May 10, 2013.
On May 24, 2013, New Meatco filed a Motion for Order: (A) Authorizing the Rejection
of Certain Executory Contracts and Unexpired Leases and the Abandonment of Personal
Property Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 365 and 554; and (B) Establishing Rejection Procedures
(“Rejection Motion”) seeking authority to reject 25 executory contracts and unexpired leases,
including the subject lease, retroactively as provided in the motion. New Meatco properly served
all interested parties, including ML, with a copy of the Rejection Motion, together with a 14-day
notice of the opportunity to request a hearing, pursuant to LBR 9013-1(o).
Although properly served, ML did not file a response in opposition to the Rejection
Motion nor request a hearing. On June 11, 2013, New Meatco filed a declaration pursuant to
LBR 9013-1(o)(3)(A) stating that it had not received opposition with respect to 24 of the 25
executory contracts and unexpired leases listed in the Rejection Motion and lodged a proposed
order pursuant to LBR 9013-1(o)(3)(B). The court entered an Order: (A) Authorizing the
Rejection of Certain Executory Contracts and Unexpired Leases and the Abandonment of
Personal Property Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 365 and 554; and (B) Establishing Rejection
Procedures (“Rejection Order”) on June 12, 2013.
On June 18, 2013, ML filed its Motion seeking reconsideration of the Rejection Order.
New Meatco’s opposition and ML’s reply were filed on June 26, 2013 and July 3, 2013,
respectively. After a hearing on July 10, 2013, the court took the matter under submission.
2 The court takes judicial notice of the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment entered in Case
No. BC506742, styled ML Long Beach, LLC v. New Meatco Provisions, LLC, et al., in the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, on May 10, 2013. The judgment is marked
“REC”D May 8, 2013 FILING WINDOW.”
Case 2:13-bk-22155-PC Doc 166 Filed 07/16/13 Entered 07/16/13 15:35:34 Desc
Main Document Page 3 of 12

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
II. DISCUSSION
This court has jurisdiction over this contested matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b) and
1334(b). This matter is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (O). Venue is
appropriate in this court. 28 U.S.C. § 1409(a).
Rule 9023 makes Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applicable in
bankruptcy cases. FRBP 9023. Rule 59(e) authorizes the filing of a motion to alter or amend a
judgment not later than 14 days after entry of the judgment. F.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Reconsideration is
“an ‘extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of
judicial resources.’” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted);
Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). In
the Ninth Circuit, “‘a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual
circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed
clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.’” Kona Enters., 229 F.3d at
890 (quoting 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)).
Reconsideration may also be granted “as necessary to prevent manifest injustice.” Navajo Nation
v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir.
2003).
In this case, the Order was entered on June 12, 2013. ML’s Motion was filed on June 18,
2013 -- within 14 days of entry of the Order. ML’s Motion is timely under FRBP 9023. ML’s
Motion does not allege newly discovered evidence nor an intervening change in controlling law.
Nor does ML’s Motion allege that reconsideration is necessary to prevent manifest injustice.
ML alleges that the court committed clear error by authorizing rejection of the subject lease
retroactive to the date that New Meatco surrendered the Premises to ML. According to ML, the
Ninth Circuit’s standard for retroactive lease rejection set forth in In re At Home Corporation,
392 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2004) does not permit retroactive rejection to a date earlier than the
motion filing date as a matter of law. Specifically, ML asserts:
Given [New Meatco’s] failure to demonstrate cause for retroactive application of
a lease rejection date, the effective date for rejection of the lease on the Premises
should be June 12, 2013. However, assuming the Court finds that circumstances
Case 2:13-bk-22155-PC Doc 166 Filed 07/16/13 Entered 07/16/13 15:35:34 Desc
Main Document Page 4 of 12

5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
existed to permit a retroactive effective date of the Lease’s rejection, in no event
does [New Meatco] have authority to make the effective date retroactive as of
May 10, 2013. At the earliest, the lease rejection effective date could only be
May 24, 2013, the date the Rejection Motion was filed.3
New Meatco disagrees, arguing that the court properly applied the At Home standard and that the
court had discretion under At Home to authorize rejection of the subject lease retroactively to the
date the Premises was vacated and surrendered to ML.
In At Home, the At Home Corporation (“At Home”) had leased two buildings from
Pacific Shores Development Corporation, LLC (“Pacific Shores”) for renovation and escrowed
$20 million to fund the project. 392 F.3d at 1066. Before completing the project and taking
possession of the leased premises, At Home filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition. Id. On the
same day, At Home filed an Emergency Motion for Order Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 365(a)
Authorizing Rejection of Unexpired Leases of NonResidential Real Property seeking to reject
the unexpired leases with Pacific Shores retroactive to the petition date – September 28, 2001.
Id. After a hearing on October 9, 2001, the bankruptcy court granted the motion and authorized
rejection of the Pacific Shore’s lease retroactive to the petition date reasoning that:
(1) Debtor moved to reject the lease immediately upon filing its bankruptcy
petition; (2) Debtor set the matter for hearing promptly; (3) Debtor was ‘not in
possession of the premises’; and (4) Pacific Shores opposed nunc pro tunc
rejection without having suggested ‘that this process should be speeded up so that
[Pacific Shores] could get . . . its indefeasible right to re-let the premises.’ In
other words, Pacific Shores’s sole ‘interest [was] in running the administrative
rent.’
Id. The district court affirmed. Pac. Shores Dev. LLC v. At Home Corp. (In re At Home Corp.),
292 B.R. 195, 204 (N.D. Cal. 2003). The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that “a bankruptcy
court, exercising its equitable powers under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a), may approve the retroactive
rejection of a nonresidential lease when ‘necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of’
§ 365(d).” At Home, 392 F.3d at 1071. In so holding, the Ninth Circuit rejected Pacific Shores
3 Motion 6:24-7:3.
Case 2:13-bk-22155-PC Doc 166 Filed 07/16/13 Entered 07/16/13 15:35:34 Desc
Main Document Page 5 of 12

6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
argument for a strict rule requiring the landlord’s to regain possession of the leased premises as a
precondition to lease rejection, stating:
In the absence of explicit direction from the statute itself, we decline to hamstring
bankruptcy courts in this way. We prefer the straightforward approach adopted
by the bankruptcy courts in cases such as Jamesway and CCI Wireless. After
concluding that nothing in section 365 prohibits a bankruptcy court from selecting
a retroactive date for the rejection of an unexpired lease[,] . . . the court[s] applied
an abuse of discretion standard in considering whether the circumstances of the
debtor’s case merited retroactive rejection.’ We expressly adopt that approach
here.
Id. at 1072 (citations omitted).
The Ninth Circuit next identified four non-exclusive factors4 to be applied by a
bankruptcy court in making a determination whether “exceptional circumstances” warranted
retroactive rejection: (1) the debtor’s immediate filing of a motion to reject the lease; (2) a
debtor’s prompt action in setting that motion for hearing; (3) the vacancy of the leased premises;
and (4) the landlord’s conduct and motivation in opposing a retroactive rejection of the lease. Id.
at 1072. The Ninth Circuit opined that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in
granting At Home’s motion retroactive to the petition date given the fact that At Home filed its
motion and secured a hearing “at the earliest practicable date,” At Home never occupied the
leased premises, and Pacific Shores’s opposition to retroactive relief was motivated by its
“‘interest in running the administrative rent . . . [rather than by] a concern to get this indisputable
right to start re-letting the premises as quickly as possible.’” Id. at 1073-75. The Ninth Circuit
concluded by stating that:
We agree with the First Circuit’s holding in Thinking Machines that a bankruptcy
court has discretion to grant a motion to reject a nonresidential lease retroactively.
The retroactive date of rejection need not be on or after the date on which the
landlord regains possession.
Id. at 1075.
4 “We need not and do not decide whether any one of the factors on which the
bankruptcy court relied, standing alone, would justify an exercise of discretion. But in
combination those factors supported the court’s equitable decision.” Id. at 1075.
Case 2:13-bk-22155-PC Doc 166 Filed 07/16/13 Entered 07/16/13 15:35:34 Desc
Main Document Page 6 of 12

7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ML reads At Home as essentially requiring a bankruptcy court to choose between two
dates for rejection – the date of the order authorizing rejection, but in no event earlier than the
date of the filing of the motion to reject the lease. However, there is nothing in either At Home
or the line of authority relied upon by the Ninth Circuit in adopting its retroactive lease rejection
standard that expressly limits the bankruptcy court’s equitable authority to establish a retroactive
rejection date no earlier than the motion filing date. See e.g., Thinking Machs. Corp. v. Mellon
Fin Servs. Corp. (In re Thinking Machs. Corp.), 67 F.3d 1021, 1029 (holding that the bankruptcy
court “has the equitable power, in suitable cases, to order a rejection to operate retroactively” to
the date the trustee takes affirmative steps to reject the lease); Stonebriar Mall Ltd. P’ship v. CCI
Wireless, LLC (In re CCI Wireless, LLC), 297 B.R. 133, 140 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2003)
(“[B]ecause section 365 does not, as a matter of law, prohibit selection of a retroactive date for
rejection, the bankruptcy court has authority under section 365(d)(3) to set the effective date of
rejection at least as early as the filing date of the motion to reject.” (emphasis added)); Constant
Ltd. P’ship v. Jamesway Corp. (In re Jamesway Corp.), 179 B.R. 33, 38 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)
(ordering lease rejection retroactive to the date the court would have approved rejection had it
not been delayed in doing so by the landlord’s frivolous objections); In re O’Neil Theaters, Inc.,
257 B.R. 806, 808 (Bankr. E.D. La. 2000) (authorizing retroactive rejection of a nonresidential
real property lease to the petition date where the debtor had vacated the premises prepetition and
landlord had locked the premises before the petition date); In re Amber’s Stores, Inc., 193 B.R.
819, 827 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1996) (permitting rejection retroactive to the petition date where the
debtor had vacated the premises and relinquished the keys prior to bankruptcy).
On May 8, 2013, New Meatco filed its voluntary chapter 11 petition in this case. On
May 10, 2013, New Meatco surrendered the Premises in broom clean condition, returned the
keys to ML, and vacated the Premises. New Meatco filed and served the Rejection Motion 14
days later seeking authority to reject 25 executory contracts and unexpired leases, including the
subject lease and related sublease with Blue Planet. New Meatco’s Rejection Motion included a
request to approve an abandonment to ML of any personal property remaining on the Premises.
Because no hearing was requested as to 24 of the 25 executory contracts and unexpired leases
Case 2:13-bk-22155-PC Doc 166 Filed 07/16/13 Entered 07/16/13 15:35:34 Desc
Main Document Page 7 of 12

8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
that were the subject of the Rejection Motion, the Rejection Order was entered on June 12, 2013,
immediately after expiration of the 14-day period under LBR 9013-1(o), authorizing the
rejection of 24 executory contracts and unexpired leases, including the subject lease and related
sublease with Blue Planet. The Rejection Order provided that the subject lease and related
sublease were rejected retroactive to the date the Premises were vacated and surrendered to ML,
and that any personal property remaining on the Premises was abandoned to ML.
ML is correct in that New Meatco’s Rejection Motion could have been filed as early as
the petition date and that New Meatco could have sought a hearing either on an emergency basis
or on shortened time pursuant to LBR 9075-1. While the Rejection Motion may not have been
brought on the petition date, New Meatco sought and obtained at the earliest practicable date the
Rejection Order which secured not only a rejection of the subject lease with ML and an
abandonment of any personal property on the Premises, but also the rejection of 23 other
executory contracts and unexpired leases. New Meatco secured the Rejection Order within 35
days of the petition date. There is no evidence that New Meatco made deliberate use of a long
notice period to keep its options open. It had vacated the Premises and surrendered the keys to
ML two days after the petition date. Rather than setting the Rejection Motion on regular notice,
New Meatco opted to give 14-days notice of the Rejection Motion and an opportunity to request
a hearing to reduce the administrative expenses associated with securing the Rejection Order and
to expedite the rejection of the 25 contracts and leases that were the subject of the motion,
including its lease with ML to give ML the opportunity to re-let the Premises. At that time, a
creditors’ committee had yet to be appointed in the case. Under the circumstances, the court
believes there was no appreciable delay in seeking relief under § 365(d). To the extent there was
delay, this factor tips in favor of ML.
New Meatco took affirmative steps to reject the subject lease with ML on May 10, 2013.
New Meatco surrendered the Premises in broom clean condition, returned the keys to ML, and
vacated the Premises on May 10, 2013. By not occupying the Premises, New Meatco made it
easier for ML to re-let. ML admits that it knew prior to bankruptcy that New Meatco was
preparing vacate the Premises. ML had filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against New
Case 2:13-bk-22155-PC Doc 166 Filed 07/16/13 Entered 07/16/13 15:35:34 Desc
Main Document Page 8 of 12

9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Meatco and its subtenant, Blue Planet. While that litigation was pending in state court, ML
worked with New Meatco to arrange for inspections and leasing tours of the Premises. ML’s
Vice President, Vickie Ivey testified:
I worked with Mr. Baring to arrange for inspections of the Premises and leasing
tours between April 15, 2013 and May 10, 2013, in an attempt to mitigate the
Landlord’s losses assuming the Debtor eventually vacated the Premises prior to
the expiration of the Lease. These inspections of the Premises included an
appraisal inspection on April 24, 2013 by Landlord’s lender, and leasing tours on
April 15, 2013, May 2, 2013, and May 10, 2013. . . . While it became clear to me
during the week prior to the Debtor vacating the Premises that the Debtor was
winding up its affairs at the Premises, the Debtor did not provide the Landlord
with any advance notice of either the Debtor’s bankruptcy filing or exactly when
the Debtor intended to vacate the Premises.5
Although ML may not have known prior to May 10, 2013, when New Meatco would actually
vacate the Premises, ML had possession of the Premises on May 10, 2013. The photographs
attached as Exhibits 1-6 to the declaration of Daniel Scouler belie the notion that the Premises
were surrendered to ML on May 10, 2013, in any condition other than broom clean condition.6
To the extent personal property of New Meatco remained on the Premises after surrender to ML,
New Meatco took appropriate steps to abandon such property to ML in conjunction with its
rejection of the lease. This factor weighs in favor of New Meatco.
ML argues that New Meatco did not fully vacate the Premises because it left a subtenant
in possession. The fact that Blue Planet might still have occupied a portion of the Premises on
May 10, 2013, does not change the court’s conclusion that extraordinary circumstances existed
warranting retroactive rejection to May 10, 2013. ML took action to recover the Premises from
Blue Planet prior to the petition date. Blue Planet, a co-defendant with New Meatco in ML’s
5 Declaration of Vickie Ivey in Support of Reply in Support of Motion to Reconsider and
Modify Terms of Order: (A) Authorizing the Rejection of Certain Executory Contracts and
Unexpired Leases and the Abandonment of Personal Property Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 365 and
554; and (B) Establishing Rejection Procedures 2:16-24.
6 Declaration of Daniel Scouler in Support of Debtor’s Objection to Motion to
Reconsider and Modify Terms of Order Authorizing the Rejection of Certain Executory
Contracts and Leases and the Abandonment of Personal Property Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 365
and 554 (“Scouler Decl.), Ex. 1-6.
Case 2:13-bk-22155-PC Doc 166 Filed 07/16/13 Entered 07/16/13 15:35:34 Desc
Main Document Page 9 of 12

10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
unlawful detainer action to recover the Premises, stipulated to a judgment awarding ML
possession of the Premises prior to New Meatco’s bankruptcy. New Meatco did not receive rent
under its sublease with Blue Planet after April 2013, and New Meatco rejected its sublease with
Blue Planet at the same time it rejected its lease of the Premises with ML effective May 10,
2013.
Finally, the amount of rent that would accrue under New Meatco’s lease with ML as an
administrative expense is no small sum. While ML states that its motivation in seeking
reconsideration and opposing retroactive rejection “is merely . . . to properly secure its
administrative rent claim,”7 At Home makes it clear that “the amount of rent [is not] irrelevant to
the equitable balancing that a court must perform when deciding whether to approve a motion to
reject a lease retroactively.” At Home, 392 F.3d at 1075. According to the Scouler Declaration,
the monthly rent and other charges accruing under New Meatco’s lease of the Premises is
approximately $219,255.8 Scouler testified that the allowance of an administrative claim of
$219,255 per month for the period after May 10, 2013, when New Meatco vacated and
surrendered the Premises to ML would, in his business judgment, significantly harm New
Meatco, its estate, and its creditors.”9 This factor weighs in favor of New Meatco.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the court applied the correct legal standard and properly weighted the At
Home’s non-exclusive factors in determining that New Meatco’s unexpired lease of the Premises
from ML could be rejected retroactively to May 10, 2013.10 Because ML has failed to establish
7 Motion 6:6-7.
8 Scouler Decl. 4:27-28.
9 Id. 5:1-4.
10 The court finds no parallel between this case and West Valley Child Crisis Control,
Inc. v. Westfest, LLC, Case No. CV10-1386-PHX-NVW, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120552 (D.
Ariz. Nov. 12, 2010), cited by ML. In West Valley, the debtor did not seek a retroactive lease
rejection date in its motion. Only after the lessor expressed no opposition to the debtor’s motion
did the debtor seek a retroactive effective date for lease rejection in its reply. The bankruptcy
court denied the retroactive relief and the district court affirmed. In this case, New Meatco
Case 2:13-bk-22155-PC Doc 166 Filed 07/16/13 Entered 07/16/13 15:35:34 Desc
Main Document Page 10 of 12

11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
that the court either committed clear error or abused its discretion in authorizing rejection of
ML’s lease retroactive to May 10, 2013, reconsideration of the Rejection Order entered on June
12, 2013 will be denied.
The court will enter an order denying the relief requested in the Motion consistent with
this Memorandum Decision.
###
sought a retroactive lease rejection date in its original motion supported by evidence of
extraordinary circumstances.
Date: July 16, 2013
Case 2:13-bk-22155-PC Doc 166 Filed 07/16/13 Entered 07/16/13 15:35:34 Desc
Main Document Page 11 of 12

12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOTICE OF ENTERED ORDER AND SERVICE LIST
Notice is given by the court that a judgment or order entitled (specify): Memorandum Decision was
entered on the date indicated as Entered on the first page of this judgment or order and will be served in
the manner stated below:
1. SERVED BY THE COURT VIA NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING (NEF) B Pursuant to controlling
General Orders and LBRs, the foregoing document was served on the following persons by the court via
NEF and hyperlink to the judgment or order. As of (date) 07-16-2013 , the following persons are currently
on the Electronic Mail Notice List for this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding to receive NEF
transmission at the email addresses stated below.
Craig H Averch caverch@whitecase.com
Michael Jay Berger michael.berger@bankruptcypower.com,
yathida.nipha@bankruptcypower.com
Bernard D Bollinger bbollinger@buchalter.com,
IFS_filing@buchalter.com;smartin@buchalter.com
J Scott Bovitz bovitz@bovitz-spitzer.com
William S Brody wbrody@buchalter.com,
rreeder@buchalter.com;IFS_filing@buchalter.com
Gary B Elmer gelmer@ciardilaw.com
M Douglas Flahaut flahaut.douglas@arentfox.com
Bernard R Given bgiven@loeb.com, mortiz@loeb.com
Gregory K Jones gjones@stutman.com
Sheri Kanesaka skanesaka@alvaradosmith.com, crosas@alvaradosmith.com
Mette H Kurth kurth.mette@arentfox.com
Kenneth G Lau kenneth.g.lau@usdoj.gov
Craig G Margulies craig@marguliesfaithlaw.com,
staci@marguliesfaithlaw.com;denisse@marguliesfaithlaw.com;fahim@marguliesfaithla
w.com
James A McCullough jmccullough@brunini.com,
mallen@brunini.com;vwycoff@brunini.com
Scott H Olson solson@seyfarth.com
Mark M Sharf mark@forbankruptcy.com, msharf00@gmail.com
Jane K Springwater jspringwater@friedmanspring.com,
jquiambao@friedmanspring.com
Gary A Starre gastarre@gmail.com
United States Trustee (LA) ustpregion16.la.ecf@usdoj.gov
2. SERVED BY THE COURT VIA UNITED STATES MAIL: A copy of this notice and a true copy of this
judgment or order was sent by United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, to the following persons
and/or entities at the addresses indicated below:
Service information continued
on attached page
Case 2:13-bk-22155-PC Doc 166 Filed 07/16/13 Entered 07/16/13 15:35:34 Desc
Main Document Page 12 of 12