552 B.R. 864
Bankr. D. Kan.2016Background
- Kansas Department of Labor attempted to commence a §523(c) adversary proceeding against Tanisha Hunter on November 23, 2015, the last day to file such complaints, but only uploaded two cover sheets and an exhibit; no formal complaint was filed that day.
- The Clerk issued orders to correct defective pleadings and later issued a summons on November 30, 2015; the actual complaint (titled "Support Document") was filed December 2, 2015, nine days late.
- Defendant moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(4) and (6) (made applicable by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7012), arguing the action was not properly commenced and was time-barred by Bankruptcy Rule 4007(c).
- Plaintiff conceded a complaint was not filed on November 23 and attributed the failure to CM/ECF/technical issues, argued the Clerk’s corrective orders and subsequent filings should relate back to the deadline, and requested leave to file or answer out of time.
- The court analyzed Rule 4007(c)’s strict 60-day bar for §523(c) complaints, found the November 23 submissions did not meet complaint requirements (Rules 7008, 7010, 7009), and held Rule 9006(b)(1) (excusable neglect) cannot extend 4007(c) deadlines per Rule 9006(b)(3).
- The court denied equitable relief under §105(a) as inconsistent with the Code and Bankruptcy Rules and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to timely file and lack of grounds for extension or relation back.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff timely commenced a §523(c) adversary by Nov. 23 bar date | The court should treat Clerk’s corrective orders and later filings as relating back to Nov. 23 despite CM/ECF errors | No complaint was filed on Nov. 23; earliest complaint filed Dec. 2 is untimely | Untimely; Nov. 23 submissions were not a complaint and Dec. 2 filing is late |
| Whether an adversary cover sheet or incomplete filings can substitute for a complaint | Cover sheet plus exhibit and corrective orders cure defects and put defendant on notice | Cover sheet is not a complaint; missing mandatory elements under Rules 7008/7010/7009 | Cover sheet/exhibit insufficient; does not satisfy complaint requirements |
| Whether the deadline may be extended under Rule 4007(c) or by excusable neglect | Equitable considerations and technical failures justify extension or lenity | Rule 4007(c) permits extension only for cause by motion filed before deadline; excusable neglect (Rule 9006) cannot apply | No extension: strict Rule 4007(c) enforcement; excusable neglect unavailable under Rule 9006(b)(3) |
| Whether §105(a) equitable powers allow relief from Rule 4007(c) bar date | Court should use equitable powers to prevent injustice | §105(a) cannot override explicit Code/Rule mandates | §105(a) cannot be used to contradict explicit Bankruptcy Code/Rules; no relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’Ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993) (excusable neglect standard but does not override limits in bankruptcy rules)
- Byrd v. Alton, 837 F.2d 457 (11th Cir. 1988) (discussion of filing/pleading requirements and consequences of defective complaints)
- Cosper v. Frederick, 73 B.R. 636 (Bankr. N.D. Fla. 1987) (clerk returned complaint for fee/cover-sheet defects; court allowed relation to pre-deadline filing under narrow facts)
- In re Jasperson, 116 B.R. 740 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 1990) (adversary cover sheet is not a substitute for required pleadings)