Agarwal

Chandrahas Agarwal (“Agarwal”) appeals the district court’s decision affirming (1) the bankruptcy court’s order rejecting his contract with Pomona Valley Medical Group, Inc., dba ProMed Health Network (“ProMed”) and (2) the bankruptcy court’s subsequent order dismissing Agarwal’s complaint in an adversary proceeding against ProMed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm, in part, and reverse, in part.

BACKGROUND

On May 14, 1999, Chandrahas Agarwal, a primary care physician and certified cardiologist, entered into a provider agreement (the “Agreement”) with ProMed, an “independent practice association” 2 in Southern California. Pursuant to the Agreement, Agarwal provided primary or basic medical services to patients in ProMed’s network. When a patient required specialty medical services, such as cardiology tests, Agarwal was required to seek authorization from ProMed’s medical director.

Under the Agreement, the twelve-month contract was extended automatically for an unlimited number of additional twelvemonth periods, unless ProMed provided written notice of non-renewal. 3 At the end of its first term, the Agreement was ex *669 tended to June 1, 2000,…

dissenting in part:

I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion holding that ProMed’s valid rejection of the Agreement between ProMed and Chandrahas Agarwal constituted a breach of that contract.

The contract between Agarwal and ProMed provided for non-renewal of the contract if written notice of non-renewal was given. ProMed complied with the non-renewal provision of the contract, resulting in non-renewal of the contract. ProMed only sought rejection of the contract as a cautionary measure in response to the filing of an adversary proceeding by Agarwal. The fact that ProMed filed a superfluous motion to reject a contract that had not been renewed does not support a finding of breach.

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: POMONA VALLEY MEDICAL 

GROUP, INC.,

Debtor,

CHANDRAHAS AGARWAL, M.D., No. 04-56334 Appellant,  D.C. No.

CV-01-10027-CBM

v.

POMONA VALLEY MEDICAL GROUP, OPINION

INC., a California professional corporation, d/b/a PROMED HEALTH

NETWORK,

Appellee.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Consuelo B. Marshall, Chief Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted June 8, 2006—Pasadena, California

Filed January 17, 2007

Before: Dorothy W. Nelson, Johnnie B. Rawlinson, and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge D.W. Nelson; Dissent by Judge Rawlinson

667

IN RE: POMONA VALLEY MEDICAL GROUP, INC. 671

COUNSEL

Henry R. Fenton, Law Offices of Henry R. Fenton, Los Ange- les, California, briefed and argued for the appellant.

Randall J. Sherman, Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, New- port Beach, California; and Garrick A. Hollander, Winthrop Couchot, Newport Beach, California, briefed for the appellee. Marc J. Winthrop, Winthrop Couchot, Newport Beach, Cali- fornia, briefed and argued for the…