Case: 14-1215
Document: 006111994454
Filed: 03/18/2014
Page: 1
No. 14-1215
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
__________
IN RE: CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN,
Debtor in Possession.
______
RETIRED DETROIT POLICE MEMBERS ASSOCIATION,
Appellant
v.
CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN,
Appellee
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; STATE OF MICHIGAN; MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Interested Parties — Appellees
__________
On Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan (Hon. Steven W. Rhodes)
__________
THE CITY OF DETROIT’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE AND EXTEND
ITS TIME TO RESPOND
__________
Beth Heifetz
David G. Heiman
JONES DAY
Heather Lennox
51 Louisiana Avenue, NW
JONES DAY
Washington, DC 20001
North Point, 901 Lakeside Avenue
Telephone: (202) 879-3939
Cleveland, OH 44114
Facsimile: (202) 626-1700
Telephone: (216) 586-3939
[email protected]
Facsimile: (216) 579-0212
[email protected]
[email protected]
Attorneys for the City of Detroit
Case: 14-1215
Document: 006111994454
Filed: 03/18/2014
Page: 2
The City of Detroit (“City”) respectfully moves the Court to consolidate
these appeals which concern the City’s eligibility for bankruptcy and, absent fully
consolidated briefing, to extend the time for the City to file its response on the
merits to June 17, 2014.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 5, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court entered an Order for Relief
Under Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code and issued an Opinion Regarding
Eligibility finding the City eligible to proceed under chapter 9. On December 20,
2013, the bankruptcy court certified its Order and Opinion for direct appeal under
28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2)(A)(i). Seven parties (or sets of parties) filed timely petitions
for permission to proceed directly in this Court, and on February 21, 2014, this
Court authorized those appeals.1 Though several appellants asked for expedited
consideration, this Court denied their request.
1
Those appeals are: Police & Fire Ret. Sys. of the City of Detroit et al. v.
City of Detroit (In re City of Detroit), No. 14-1208; Official Comm. of Retirees of
the City of Detroit v. City of Detroit (In re City of Detroit), No. 14-1209; Mich.
Council 25 of the Am. Fed’n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Emps., AFL-CIO et al. v. City
of Detroit (In re City of Detroit), No. 14-1211; Retired Detroit Police & Fire
Fighters Ass’n et al. v. City of Detroit (In re City of Detroit), No. 14-1212;
International Union, UAW et al. v. City of Detroit (In re City of Detroit), No. 141213; Detroit Fire Fighters Ass’n et al. v. City of Detroit (In re City of Detroit), No.
14-1214; Retired Detroit Police Members Ass’n v. City of Detroit (In re City of
Detroit), No. 14-1215. The City has filed identical versions of this motion in each
of these cases.
Case: 14-1215
Document: 006111994454
Filed: 03/18/2014
Page: 3
On March 12, 2014, the Court entered briefing orders in each of those
appeals. According to those orders, each appellant (or set of appellants) must file
its own principal brief by April 24, and the City must file responses to those briefs
by May 27. Each appellant or set of appellants would then have 17 days in which
to file any reply brief. Absent consolidation, these orders would allow the
appellants’ briefs (considered collectively) to run up to 147,000 words—98,000
words of principal briefing and 49,000 words of reply briefing—while the City’s
could reach 98,000 words. See Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(i)–(ii) (providing
14,000 words for principal briefs and 7,000 words for reply briefs).
RELIEF REQUESTED
The City respectfully requests that the Court:
(1)
Consolidate the appeals administratively such that the parties file
materials only in one lead case; and
(2)
Consolidate briefing:
(i) Consolidate in full such that the appellants file one joint
principal brief of no more than 20,000 words and one joint
reply brief of no more than 10,000 words, while the City files
one consolidated principal brief of 20,000 words; or
(ii) In the alternative, partially consolidate such that the
appellants file one joint principal brief of no more than 20,000
words, individual principal briefs of no more than 3,000 words,
and one joint reply of no more than 10,000 words, while the
City files one consolidated principal brief of 30,000 words; and
2
Case: 14-1215
(3)
Document: 006111994454
Filed: 03/18/2014
Page: 4
If the Court declines to grant full consolidation, extend the deadline
for the City’s principal response brief (or briefs) from May 27 until
June 17.
GROUNDS FOR RELIEF
I.
Administrative Consolidation
Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(b)(2), “[w]hen the parties have
filed separate timely notices of appeal, the appeals may be joined or consolidated
by the court of appeals.” Courts assessing whether consolidation is appropriate
look to both “equity and judicial economy.” Chem One, Ltd. v. M/V Rickmers
Genoa, 660 F.3d 626, 642 (2d Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). When cases are consolidated for administrative purposes, one case is
designated as the lead case and filings entered in that case are automatically filed
in the others.
Administrative consolidation is appropriate here. While there are nominally
seven different appeals pending before this Court, each challenges the same
underlying Bankruptcy Court order. The filings in each appeal are relevant to the
others. There is no reason for the Court to manage separate dockets or for the
parties to have to file identical materials in each, as this motion itself demonstrates.
II.
Consolidated Briefing
Consolidated briefing is also appropriate here. In keeping with Federal Rule
of Appellate Procedure 3(b)(2)’s focus on equity and judicial economy, “courts
wishing to promote brevity will encourage or sometimes require litigants with
3
Case: 14-1215
Document: 006111994454
Filed: 03/18/2014
Page: 5
identical interests to file a single appellate brief; the courts’ interest in doing so
will be particularly acute in cases with a large number of parties.” 16A Charles
Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Edward H. Cooper et al., Federal Practice and
Procedure § 3949.2 (4th ed.) (footnotes omitted). Accordingly, this Court and
others have consolidated briefing where doing so allows for the just and efficient
resolution of related cases or similar issues. See, e.g., Official Comm. of
Unsecured Creditors v. Dow Corning Corp. (In re Dow Corning Corp.), 456 F.3d
668, 671, 674 n.2 (6th Cir. 2006) (consolidated briefing on issues common to the
different creditors’ claims); United States v. Swiney, 203 F.3d 397, 399 & n.1 (6th
Cir. 2000) (consolidating briefing on similar sentencing questions); United States
v. Torres, 170 F.3d 749, 750–51 (7th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (ordering defendants
to file a single consolidated brief addressing their shared arguments).
Equity and judicial economy call for consolidating briefing here. Each of
the appellants has the same interest—overturning the Bankruptcy Court’s
determination that the City is unconditionally eligible to proceed under chapter 9.
Moreover, the appellants raise largely the same legal challenges to that
determination. Some have gone so far as to incorporate other appellants’
statements of the issues on appeal as their own. See Civil Appeal Statement of
Parties and Issues in No. 14-1214 (incorporating issues raised by AFSCME, the
Retirement Systems, and the UAW). Others, while using somewhat different
4
Case: 14-1215
Document: 006111994454
Filed: 03/18/2014
Page: 6
language, have raised essentially the same arguments regarding a host of issues:
whether the City was authorized to file for chapter 9 in light of the Michigan
Constitution’s Pensions Clause,2 whether chapter 9 violates the Tenth Amendment
if construed to allow the Bankruptcy Court to impair pension benefits,3 whether
negotiations were “impracticable” under 11 U.S.C. § 109(c)(5)(C),4 and so on. As
2
Compare, e.g., Civil Appeal Statement of Parties and Issues in No. 141208 (“Under 11 U.S.C. § 109(c)(2), is the City ‘specifically authorized . . . by
State law’ to be a Chapter 9 debtor and seek a discharge of pension obligations in a
plan of adjustment, when the Pensions Clause of the Michigan Constitution
provides that those pension benefits cannot be ‘diminished or impaired’?”
(alteration in original)), with Civil Appeal Statement of Parties and Issues in No.
14-1209 (asking “whether PA 436, M.C.L. § 141.1541 et seq., should be construed
to authorize, under 11 U.S.C § 109(c)(2), a chapter 9 filing intended to impair or
diminish accrued pension benefits in violation of the express protection of such
benefits under the Pension Clause, Article IX § 24, of the Michigan Constitution,
and if so, is PA 436 unconstitutional under Michigan law”).
3
Compare, e.g., Civil Appeal Statement of Parties and Issues in No. 141209 (asking “whether chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code should be construed to
allow the impairment or diminution of accrued pension benefits that are expressly
protected from impairment and diminution by the Pension Clause, and, if so,
whether Chapter 9 as applied violates the Tenth Amendment”), with Civil Appeal
Statement of Parties and Issues in No. 14-1211 (asking “[w]hether the principles of
federalism embodied in both the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution and 11
U.S.C. § 903, among other sections of the Bankruptcy Code, stand as a bar to the
impairment of accrued pension rights in this chapter 9 case in light of the Pensions
Clause contained in Art. IX, Section 24 of the Michigan Constitution”).
4
Compare, e.g., Civil Appeal Statement of Parties and Issues in No. 141213 (asking “[w]hether the bankruptcy court erred in finding that negotiations
with the City’s creditors over a plan of adjustment were impracticable within the
meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 109(c)(5)(C) when, among other things, the City refused to
bargain with the UAW regarding the UAW’s proposal for a procedure to resolve
certain claims via a class-action settlement outside of bankruptcy”), with Civil
5
Case: 14-1215
Document: 006111994454
Filed: 03/18/2014
Page: 7
important as this case is, this Court should not have to wade through 147,000
words addressing these identical or closely related issues, all of which are raised by
parties with essentially indistinguishable interests for purposes of these appeals.
The City should not be forced to bear the expense of responding to such a
mountain of briefing either.
Accordingly, the City asks the Court to consolidate briefing. The City asks
the Court to grant the appellants no more than 20,000 words for a consolidated
principal brief, to give the City the same number of words for its brief in response,
and to allow the appellants another 10,000 words for a consolidated reply. These
limits, which exceed those ordinarily placed upon parties by Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure 32(a)(7)(B)(i) and 32(a)(7)(B)(ii), reflect both the significance
of this case and the need to conserve the Court’s time. No one will be prejudiced
by this request, as the Court entered its briefing order just last week, giving the
appellants enough time to produce a joint brief.
If the Court declines to grant this request, the City alternatively asks the
Court to order at least partial consolidation, as other courts have done in similar
situations. See, e.g., United States v. Ashman, 964 F.2d 596, 598 (7th Cir. 1992)
(continued…)
Appeal Statement of Parties and Issues in No. 14-1208 (“Under 11 U.S.C.
§ 109(c)(5) (C), was it ‘impracticable’ for the City to negotiate with creditors in
good faith before filing this case?”).
6
Case: 14-1215
Document: 006111994454
Filed: 03/18/2014
Page: 8
(ordering defendants to file one joint 75-page brief, individual 12-page briefs if
desired, a 25-page consolidated reply, and 5-page individual replies). Under this
scenario, the City respectfully requests that this Court grant the appellants no more
than 20,000 words for a consolidated principal brief, no more than 3,000 words for
their own individual principal briefs, and no more than 10,000 words for a
consolidated reply. If the Court adopts this alternative, the City respectfully
requests up to 30,000 words for its principal brief in recognition of the more
extensive briefing granted to the appellants. This approach would provide the
appellants with 41,000 total words for their principal briefs—11,000 more than the
City seeks for itself —while saving the Court’s resources. Again, no one would be
prejudiced by this request, as the briefing order issued just last week.
III.
Extending the City’s Time To File Its Principal Brief
The City also asks the Court to extend the City’s time for filing its principal
brief unless the Court grants full consolidation. Under the current schedule, if the
Court does not consolidate, the City will have little more than a month to respond
to seven full-length briefs. If the Court grants partial consolidation, the City would
still only have little more than a month to respond to briefs totaling up to 41,000
words in length.
In addition to the problems inherent in responding to such lengthy briefs, the
City also faces overlapping deadlines in the underlying bankruptcy proceedings.
7
Case: 14-1215
Document: 006111994454
Filed: 03/18/2014
Page: 9
According to the current schedule in the Bankruptcy Court, objections to the City’s
plan of adjustment are due on April 28, and the City’s response to those objections
must be filed by May 12. See Attachment A. Under the current scheduling orders
in this Court, the appellants’ briefs are due on April 24, and the City must respond
by May 27. These windows coincide, and the City desires additional time to give
each of these tasks the attention they require. Accordingly, the City respectfully
asks the Court to extend the time for its principal response brief (or briefs) until
June 17 unless the Court grants full consolidation.
The City has informed the appellants of each of its requests. The UAW does
not consent to any of them. The Retirement Systems, for their part, do not oppose
consolidation of the direct appeals solely for administrative purposes of having a
single docket, but they oppose the City’s motion in all other respects. AFSCME
and the Retiree Association Parties do not object to administrative consolidation,
but they do object to every other aspect of this motion. The Retiree Committee
does not oppose administrative consolidation for purposes of a common briefing
and argument schedule, but it opposes consolidation for purposes of a required
common or single brief among the parties, consolidated page or word limits, and
consolidated oral argument time. The Retired Detroit Police Members Association
does not oppose administrative consolidation for purposes of scheduling, but it
8
Case: 14-1215
Document: 006111994454
Filed: 03/18/2014
Page: 10
opposes consolidation for purposes of briefing. The other appellants have not
responded to the City’s request for their views.5
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the City respectfully asks the Court to
administratively consolidate the appeals, consolidate briefing, and, unless full
consolidation is ordered, extend the City’s time to file its principal brief until June
17, 2014.
Dated: March 18, 2014
Respectfully submitted,
David G. Heiman
Heather Lennox
JONES DAY
North Point, 901 Lakeside Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 586-3939
Facsimile: (216) 579-0212
[email protected]
[email protected]
/s/ Beth Heifetz
Beth Heifetz
JONES DAY
51 Louisiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 879-3939
Facsimile: (202) 626-1700
[email protected]
5
The City will not oppose any reasonable request for additional time made
by the appellants.
9
Case: 14-1215
Document: 006111994454
Filed: 03/18/2014
Page: 11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on March 18, 2014, I caused one copy of the foregoing City of
Detroit’s Motion To Consolidate and Extend Its Time To Respond to be served by
CM-ECF where registered, by email where available, and otherwise by overnight
mail to the following persons:
CLARK HILL PLC
Robert D. Gordon
151 South Old Woodward Avenue, Suite 200
Birmingham, MI 48009
Email: [email protected]
Counsel for the Police & Fire Retirement
System of the City of Detroit and the
General Retirement System of the City of
Detroit
ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
Lisa S. Blatt
R. Stanton Jones
555 Twelfth Street NW
Washington, DC 20004
Email: [email protected],
[email protected]
Counsel for the Police & Fire Retirement
System of the City of Detroit and the
General Retirement System of the City of
Detroit
Case: 14-1215
Document: 006111994454
ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
Lisa Hill Fenning
777 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 4400
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Email: [email protected]
Counsel for the Police & Fire Retirement
System of the City of Detroit and the
General Retirement System of the City of
Detroit
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Jeffrey Clair
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Room 7243
Washington, DC 20530
Counsel for United States of America
DEPARTMENT OF ATTORNEY
GENERAL
Aaron D. Lindstrom
Matthew Schneider
P.O. Box 30212
Lansing, MI 48909
Email: [email protected],
[email protected]
Counsel for State of Michigan
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
Steven G. Howell
500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 4000
Detroit, MI 48226
Email: [email protected]
Counsel for State of Michigan,
Department of Attorney General
Filed: 03/18/2014
Page: 12
Case: 14-1215
Document: 006111994454
DENTONS US LLP
Claude D. Montgomery
1221 Avenue of the Americas, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10020
Email: [email protected]
Counsel for the Official Committee of
Retirees of the City of Detroit
BREDHOFF & KAISER, P.L.L.C.
Andrew D. Roth
805 15th Street, N.W., Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005
Email: [email protected]
Counsel for Michigan Council 25 of the
American Federation of State, County &
Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO; SubChapter 98, City of Detroit Retirees
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
Sharon L. Levine
65 Livingston Avenue
Roseland, NJ 07068
Email: [email protected]
Counsel for Michigan Council 25 of the
American Federation of State, County &
Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO; SubChapter 98, City of Detroit Retirees
Filed: 03/18/2014
Page: 13
Case: 14-1215
Document: 006111994454
SILVERMAN & MORRIS, P.L.L.C.
Karin F. Avery
Thomas R. Morris
30500 Northwestern Highway, Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
Email: [email protected],
[email protected]
Counsel for the Retired Detroit Police &
Fire Fighters Association, Donald
Taylor, individually and as President of
the Retired Detroit Police & Fire
Fighters Association, the Detroit Retired
City Employees Association, Shirley V.
Lightsey, individually and as President of
the Detroit Retired City Employees
Association
LIPPITT O’KEEFE, PLLC
Ryan C. Plecha
Brian D. O’Keefe
370 East Maple Road, 3rd Floor
Birmingham, MI 48009
Email: [email protected],
[email protected]
Counsel for Retired Detroit Police &
Fire Fighters Association, Donald
Taylor, individually and as President of
the Retired Detroit Police & Fire
Fighters Association, the Detroit Retired
City Employees Association, Shirley V.
Lightsey, individually and as President of
the Detroit Retired City Employees
Association
Filed: 03/18/2014
Page: 14
Case: 14-1215
Document: 006111994454
William A. Wertheimer
30515 Timberbrook Lane
Bingham Farms, MI 48025
Email: [email protected]
Counsel for Robbie Flowers, Michael
Wells, Janet Whitson, Mary Washington,
and Bruce Goldman
COHEN, WEISS AND SIMON LLP
Peter D. DeChiara
Babette A. Ceccotti
330 West 42nd Street
New York, NY 10036
Email: [email protected],
[email protected]
Counsel for International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW)
OFFICE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY
GENERAL
B. Eric Restuccia
525 West Ottawa, 4th Floor
P.O. Box 30217
Lansing, MI 48909
Email: [email protected],
[email protected]
Michigan Department of Attorney
General
Filed: 03/18/2014
Page: 15
Case: 14-1215
Document: 006111994454
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Matthew J. Troy
1100 L Street, N.W., Suite 12044
Washington, DC 20530
U.S. Attorney General
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
TRUSTEE
Daniel McDermott
Sean Cowley
Maria D. Giannirakis
211 West Fort Street Suite 700
Detroit, MI 48226
Carl Williams
10112 Somerset
Detroit, MI 48224
Hassan Aleem
2440 Taylor
Detroit, MI 48205
ERMAN, TEICHER, MILLER,
ZUCKER & FREEDMAN, P.C.
Barbara A. Patek
Earle I. Erman
400 Galleria Officentre
Suite 444
Southfield, MI 48034
Email: [email protected],
[email protected]
Counsel for Detroit Fire Fighters
Association, Detroit Police Officers
Association, and Detroit Police
Command Officers Association
Filed: 03/18/2014
Page: 16
Case: 14-1215
Document: 006111994454
Filed: 03/18/2014
Page: 17
DEPARTMENT OF ATTORNEY
GENERAL
Steven B. Flancher
P.O. Box 30754
Lansing, MI 48909
Email: [email protected]
Counsel for State of Michigan
STROBL & SHARP, P.C.
Lynn B. Brimer
Meredith E. Taunt
300 E. Long Lake Road
Suite 200
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
Email: [email protected],
[email protected]
Counsel for Retired Detroit Police
Members Association
/s/ Beth Heifetz
Beth Heifetz
Counsel for the City of Detroit
Case: 14-1215
Document: 006111994454
Filed: 03/18/2014
ATTACHMENT A
Page: 18
Case: 14-1215
Document: 006111994454
Filed: 03/18/2014
Page:
19Filed: 3/6/2014
Docket #2937
Date
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
In re:
City of Detroit, Michigan,
Debtor.
_______________________________/
Chapter 9
Case No. 13-53846
Hon. Steven W. Rhodes
Second Amended Order Establishing Procedures, Deadlines and
Hearing Dates Relating to the Debtor’s Plan of Adjustment
The City has filed a plan of adjustment and a proposed disclosure statement. To promote
the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of this case as required by Fed. R. Bankr. P.
1001, the Court hereby establishes the procedures, deadlines and hearing dates set forth below.
Nothing herein excuses any party from the continuing obligation to
participate in good faith in any mediation as ordered by Chief Judge
Rosen.
Further, the Court again strongly encourages all parties to negotiate
with full intensity and vigor with a view toward resolving their disputes
regarding the treatment of claims in the City’s plan of adjustment.
1.
March 14, 2014 is the deadline for parties to make a good faith effort to advise counsel
for the City in writing of any request to include additional information in the disclosure
statement. These requests shall not be filed with the Court.
2.
March 21, 2014 is the deadline for the City, the Retiree Committee, and any other
interested parties to submit briefs on whether the classification of retiree claims in the
plan of adjustment violates the bankruptcy code.
3.
March 28, 2014 is the deadline for the parties to file reply briefs regarding the issue
identified in paragraph 2, above.
4.
April 1, 2014 is the deadline to file objections to the proposed disclosure statement.
Parties shall not state objections to the plan as objections to the proposed
disclosure statement.
A party filing an objection to the proposed disclosure statement shall use
the proper ECF event code for the filing.
13-53846-swr
Doc 2937
Filed 03/06/14
¨1¤CFN.#&
x;«
1353846140306000000000088
Entered 03/06/14 16:45:46
Page 1 of 4
Case: 14-1215
Document: 006111994454
Filed: 03/18/2014
Page: 20
5.
April 4, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. will be the date and time for the hearing on the issue
identified in paragraph 2, above.
6.
April 8, 2014 is the deadline for the City to file:
(a) One combined response to all of the timely objections to the proposed disclosure
statement.
(b) A list of its fact witnesses and to identify the subjects that each witness will address.
7.
April 10, 2014 is the deadline for attorneys who have filed timely disclosure statement
objections and counsel for the City to meet and confer with a view toward narrowing and
resolving their disputes regarding the adequacy of the disclosure statement. This “meet
and confer” may be in person or by telephone. Any party whose attorney fails to timely
participate in this process will be deemed to have waived its objections to the disclosure
statement.
The Court strongly encourages the parties to resolve all disclosure
statement objections before the hearing on the disclosure statement, and
strongly discourages the parties from pursuing expensive, time-consuming
and unnecessary litigation regarding the adequacy of the disclosure
statement.
8.
April 11, 2014 is the deadline:
(a) For the City to file a statement identifying the objections to the disclosure statement
that remain unresolved after the “meet and confer” process required by paragraph 7,
above.
(b) For all parties to serve written discovery requests regarding plan confirmation.
9.
April 14, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. will be the date and time of:
(a) The hearing on any unresolved objections to the disclosure statement; and
(b) A status conference regarding the plan confirmation process.
10.
April 18, 2014 is the deadline for the City to file the final disclosure statement resolving
any objections that the Court has sustained.
11.
April 25, 2014 is the deadline to comply with timely written discovery requests.
12.
April 26, 2014 is the date on which depositions may commence.
13.
April 28, 2014 is the deadline:
(a) For the City to mail plan solicitation packages and, to the extent provided in any order
approving vote solicitation procedures, to provide packages to applicable DTC
participants;
13-53846-swr
Doc 2937
2
Filed 03/06/14 Entered 03/06/14 16:45:46
Page 2 of 4
Case: 14-1215
Document: 006111994454
Filed: 03/18/2014
Page: 21
(b) For parties other than individual bondholders and individual retirees to file objections
to the plan; and
(c) For parties who have filed timely objections to plan confirmation to file a list of their
fact witnesses and to identify the subjects that each witness will address.
A party filing an objection to the plan shall use the proper ECF event code
for the filing.
14.
May 12, 2014 is the deadline for the City to file one combined response to all of the
timely plan objections filed under paragraph 13(b), above.
15.
May 30, 2014 is the deadline for each party to file a list of expert witnesses and to serve
copies of expert reports (which shall not be filed).
16.
June 16, 2014 is the deadline to complete all non-expert witness depositions.
17.
June 30, 2014 is the deadline:
(a) For plan voting;
(b) For individual bondholders and individual retirees to file objections to the plan; and
(c) To complete expert depositions.
18.
July 7, 2014 is the deadline for any party that filed a timely objection to the plan to file a
supplemental objection, but only to the extent that discovery or the results of plan voting
give rise to additional or modified objections to the plan.
19.
July 11, 2014 is the deadline:
(a) To submit a proposed joint final pretrial order in compliance with LBR 7016-1;
(b) To file pretrial briefs; and
(c) For the City to file one combined response to supplemental objections to the plan and
to objections filed by individual bondholders and individual retirees.
20.
July 14, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. will be the date and time of the final pretrial conference
on plan confirmation.
21.
July 16, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. will be the date and time for the commencement of the
hearing on plan confirmation.
Additional confirmation hearing dates, as necessary, will be July 17-18, 21-25, 28-31
and August 1, 2014.
13-53846-swr
Doc 2937
3
Filed 03/06/14 Entered 03/06/14 16:45:46
Page 3 of 4
Case: 14-1215
Document: 006111994454
Filed: 03/18/2014
Page: 22
At this hearing, in addition to any evidence addressing the factual issues
raised in the parties’ plan objections, the City shall present evidence
establishing the feasibility of its plan as required by 11 U.S.C. § 943(b)(7).
The dates and deadlines established herein will be extended only on motion establishing
good cause.
It is so ordered.
.
Signed on March 06, 2014
_
13-53846-swr
Doc 2937
/s/ Steven Rhodes
_
Steven Rhodes
United States Bankruptcy Judge
4
Filed 03/06/14 Entered 03/06/14 16:45:46
Page 4 of 4