In re: Juvelyn Smith, SC-13-1185-PaJuKu

Debtor Juvelyn Smith filed Chapter 7 and received a discharge; the case closed in December 2008.
Appellant Michael Smith sought to reopen the case to pursue nondischargeability claims against Debtor via adversary proceeding.
Adversary complaint was filed April 28, 2009; amended July 26, 2010, alleging four claims for relief.
Bankruptcy court granted Debtor summary judgment on the immigration-fraud claim (fourth count) and later denied summary judgment on the first three claims to the extent not based on excluded issues.
After extensive proceedings, a judgment dismissing the adversary proceeding was entered February 22, 2013; Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on March 18, 2013, which the Panel dismissed as untimely on May 6, 2013.
Appellant then moved for extension of time to file the SJ Appeal; the bankruptcy court denied this motion on April 3, 2013, and Appellant filed the current appeal on April 17, 2013.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in denying an extension of time to appeal.	Smith argues the delay was excusable neglect.	Smith’s delay was deliberate; no excusable neglect.	No abuse; extension denied.

Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993) (excusable neglect is an equitable, broad standard)
Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2004) (outlines factors for extension of time to appeal)
In re Cahn, 188 B.R. 627 (9th Cir. BAP 1995) (timeliness and extensions under Rule 8002 focus on excusable neglect and prejudice)
In re Betacom of Phoenix, Inc., 250 B.R. 376 (9th Cir. BAP 2000) (application of Pioneer/Pincay factors to extensions of time to appeal)
Warrick v. Birdsell, 278 B.R. 182 (9th Cir. BAP 2002) (review of extension decisions for abuse of discretion)