Gil-De La Madrid v. Bowles Custom Pools & Spa, 817 F.3d 371

Debtor Julio Enrique Gil‑De La Madrid filed Chapter 13; bankruptcy court set July 19, 2012 as the 90‑day bar date for unsecured claims.
The case was dismissed on June 13, 2012; Debtor moved for reconsideration and the court reinstated the case on August 1, 2012 (after the July 19 bar date).
Creditor Bowles sought leave to file an unsecured claim on August 7, 2012, explaining it treated the bar date as inoperative during the dismissal.
The bankruptcy court reset the claims deadline to September 6, 2012 and allowed Bowles’s claim; the district court affirmed.
The First Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision to accept Bowles’s claim as timely and denied Bowles’s motion for fees, costs, and sanctions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the bankruptcy court erred in allowing an unsecured claim filed after the 90‑day bar date because the bar date fell between dismissal and reinstatement	Gil‑De La Madrid: the plain text of Rules 3002 and 9006 confines the court’s power to enlarge the 90‑day period and the bar date had run before reinstatement, so Bowles’s claim is untimely	Bowles: dismissal rendered rule deadlines inoperative; after reinstatement the court may reset or apply equitable powers under §105(a) to set a new bar date	The court affirmed: accepting the claim was permissible because either (1) the dismissal period need not be counted toward the 90 days or (2) the bankruptcy court may use equitable powers to set a new bar date; Bowles’s filing was timely under either approach
Whether appellee’s motion for appellate sanctions and fees was warranted	Gil‑De La Madrid: appeal raised non‑frivolous arguments about Rule interpretation and equitable relief	Bowles: appeal was frivolous and a delay tactic, warranting costs/fees under Fed. R. App. P. 38 and 28 U.S.C. §1927	Denied: the appeal was not frivolous and there was no evidence of unreasonable or vexatious conduct

In re Gardenhire, 209 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir.) (reinstated case is same case; bar date analysis after reinstatement)
In re Dunlap, 217 F.3d 311 (5th Cir.) (held dismissal does not require filing during dismissal for analogous nondischargeability deadlines)
Matter of Coston, 987 F.2d 1096 (5th Cir.) (allowing equitable treatment of deadlines after dismissal)
In re Nosek, 544 F.3d 34 (1st Cir.) (§105(a) as gap‑filling equitable tool to preserve bankruptcy system integrity)
In re Furlong, 660 F.3d 81 (1st Cir.) (standard of review for bankruptcy appeals)