603 B.R. 449
Bankr. N.D. Cal.2019Background
- Debtor filed pro se Chapter 7 on Sept. 7, 2017, later converted to Chapter 13 on Oct. 23, 2017 to keep her residence and propose a plan paying creditors in full.
- Clerk mailed Official Form 309I Notice on Oct. 25, 2017 setting the unsecured claims bar date as Feb. 28, 2018 (90 days under former Rule 3002(c)).
- Rule 3002(c) was amended effective Dec. 1, 2017 to shorten the claims deadline to 70 days after relief or conversion; transmittal order directed application to pending cases "insofar as just and practicable."
- LVNV filed three unsecured proofs of claim on Feb. 27, 2018; Debtor objected that claims were untimely under amended Rule 3002(c) (bar date Jan. 1, 2018).
- LVNV argued retroactive application of the amended Rule would not be "just and practicable;" Debtor urged immediate retroactive effect and disallowance.
- Bankruptcy Court overruled Debtor's objection, holding it was neither just nor practicable to apply amended Rule 3002(c) to this case (and finding such retroactive application impracticable generally to pending cases as of Dec. 1, 2017).
Issues
| Issue | Debtor's Argument | LVNV's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LVNV's Feb. 27, 2018 proofs of claim were untimely under amended Rule 3002(c) | Amended Rule 3002(c) (70-day deadline) applied to pending cases, so bar date was Jan. 1, 2018 and claims are late | Applying the amended rule retroactively here would be unjust and impracticable given the Clerk's noticed Feb. 28 bar date and creditor reliance | Court: Overruled objection—not just or practicable to apply amended Rule 3002(c) to this case; claims are timely under the noticed deadline |
| Whether amended Rule 3002(c) could be applied to all cases pending as of Dec. 1, 2017 | Amendments take effect Dec. 1 and should govern pending cases insofar as just and practicable; courts should apply them | Nationwide retroactive application would require re-mailing notices in hundreds of pending Chapter 13 cases, imposing undue administrative burden and unfairly shortening noticed deadlines | Court: Not practicable to apply amended Rule 3002(c) to then-pending cases generally; administrative and notice burdens weigh against retroactive application |
Key Cases Cited
- Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993) (excusable neglect standard for late filings)
- United States v. Ross, 372 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2004) (consideration of retroactive application of amended procedural rules)
- United States v. Woods, [citation="173 F. App'x 631"] (9th Cir. 2006) (courts may refuse retroactive application when amended deadline substantially shortens time to act)