In re Puchi Props. Inc., 601 B.R. 677

Debtor Puchi Properties leased commercial property to UETA beginning 2013; rent $8,000/month; lease term through 2033.
Debtor filed Chapter 11 in February 2014; a Chapter 11 trustee (Gerald K. Smith) was appointed and later proposed a Plan dated May 11, 2015 that listed the Lease on Schedule G and stated no unexpired leases would be rejected.
Trustee did not serve UETA with the disclosure statement, the Plan solicitation package, notice of the confirmation hearing, or the Confirmation Order; UETA had only general knowledge of the bankruptcy and did not actively participate pre-confirmation.
Court confirmed the Plan March 11, 2016; effective date March 28, 2016; Plan provision treated Schedule G leases as assumed as of the Effective Date.
UETA later sued in state court (Nov. 2017). The Plan Trustee (John C. Smith) moved in 2018 to enforce confirmation and compel UETA to comply with the Lease; UETA opposed, arguing inadequate notice and lack of valid assumption.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Lease was validly assumed through the confirmed Plan	Trustee: Plan listed the Lease on Schedule G and confirmed Plan assumed listed leases, so Lease was assumed and UETA is bound	UETA: Trustee failed to serve disclosure statement, Plan, confirmation notice, or Confirmation Order; thus UETA lacked constitutionally adequate notice and cannot be bound	Held: Not validly assumed; inadequate notice means UETA not bound and Lease deemed rejected as of the Effective Date.
Whether actual knowledge of the bankruptcy by UETA cures lack of formal notice	Trustee: UETA had general/actual knowledge and participated in negotiations, so due process satisfied	UETA: General knowledge insufficient without the specific notice required for assumption; no duty to monitor docket	Held: Inquiry focuses on what notice Trustee gave; actual-knowledge discovery unnecessary; insufficient procedural notice defeats assumption.
Whether inadequate notice renders the Confirmation Order void as to UETA	Trustee: Confirmation is final and Plan provisions bind parties listed on Schedule G	UETA: Order is unenforceable against it because entered inconsistent with due process	Held: Where notice inadequate, the order is void as to that party; Court declines to bind UETA.

In re Pegasus Gold Corp., 394 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2005) (test for post-confirmation jurisdiction and close nexus to plan)
In re Resorts Int'l Inc., 372 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 2004) (matters affecting interpretation or implementation of a confirmed plan have close nexus)
In re Nat'l Gypsum Co., 208 F.3d 498 (5th Cir. 2000) (notice required for assumption through plan comparable to motion practice; actual notice may suffice only if sufficiently specific)
Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (due process requires notice reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties)
In re DeWalt, 961 F.2d 848 (9th Cir. 1992) (debtors should not benefit from negligent failure to provide notice)
Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. v. Ctr. Wholesale, Inc. (In re Ctr. Wholesale, Inc.), 759 F.2d 1440 (9th Cir. 1985) (judgment void if entered inconsistent with due process)
In re Hernandez, 287 B.R. 795 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2002) (debtor may not both treat an executory contract in a plan and effect a ride-through)