chapter 7 administrative creditors must be paid first. Kir Temecula contends § 365(d)(3) affords the landlord superpriority where it promptly obtains a court order enforcing its rights under this section. The case law is split on this issue, and there is no controlling Ninth Circuit au thority. The majority of courts hold the landlord is entitled to immediate payment except when it appears the estate is administratively insolvent. See In re Microvideo Learning Systems, Inc., 232 B.R. 602, 605-06 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1999) (siding with the “vast majority” of courts that adopt the majority view); In re J.T. Rapps, Inc., 225 B.R. 257, 261 (Bankr.D.Mass.1998) (summarizing the competing views and adopting the majority view); In re The Tandem Group, Inc., 61 B.R. 738, 741-42 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.1986) (<HOLDING>). These courts reason the language of §
holding the landlord is not entitled to superpriority holding that it is wellsettled that although a plaintiff is entitled to full recovery for its damages it is not entitled to a double recovery for the same loss or injury holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity holding that a secured creditor is not entitled to receive any more than that to which it was entitled pursuant to the terms of the confirmed plan holding that agency interpretation which is reasonable is entitled to deference