Shionta Shanell Somerville, 605 B.R. 700

Debtor Shionta Somerville filed a Chapter 13 petition on August 14, 2018; claims bar date in the case was October 23, 2018.
Brenner’s Restoration (Movant) performed prepetition work and filed state-court suit May 2, 2018 but did not effectuate service on Somerville until October 18, 2018—after the bankruptcy filing.
Somerville did not list Brenner or the state-court litigation in her schedules or on the creditor list; Brenner therefore received no notice of the case or the claims bar date.
After discovering the bankruptcy post-petition (via attempted garnishment), Brenner filed (a) a motion for leave to file an untimely proof of claim and (b) an alternative motion for relief from the automatic stay; Somerville opposed the stay relief.
The Court held Brenner’s Claim Motion must be denied under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3002(c)(6)(A) because Somerville timely filed the creditor list required by Rule 1007, so the rule’s exception for late claims did not apply; as a result Brenner’s claim is not "provided for" by the confirmed plan and will survive discharge (but remains subject to the stay until lifted).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Brenner)	Defendant's Argument (Somerville)	Held
Whether the court may extend the Chapter 13 claims bar date under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3002(c)(6)(A) where a creditor lacked notice because it was omitted from the debtor's schedules	Brenner argued the Court should permit an untimely claim because it had no notice of the claims bar date and equity favors allowing payment under the plan	Somerville argued Rule 3002(c)(6)(A) requires that insufficient notice be caused by the debtor’s failure to timely file the creditor list under Rule 1007, which did not occur here	Denied: Rule 3002(c)(6)(A) requires both (1) insufficient notice and (2) that the insufficient notice resulted from the debtor’s failure to timely file the Rule 1007 creditor list; Somerville timely filed the list, so no extension allowed
Whether an unscheduled creditor who cannot file a late claim because Rule 3002(c) does not permit extension is nevertheless discharged at plan completion	Brenner implicitly argued relief should avoid stripping its collection rights	Somerville argued that because the claim is not allowed or provided for by the plan it is excluded from the Chapter 13 discharge	Held for Somerville on legal effect: Brenner’s claim is not "provided for" by the plan and therefore will survive any Chapter 13 discharge; Brenner may pursue its rights after the stay terminates

Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306 (notice must be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties)
United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260 (finality and due process in bankruptcy confirmations)
Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entm’t Grp., 493 U.S. 120 (plain-meaning approach to federal rules)
In re Sunterra Corp., 361 F.3d 257 (4th Cir.) (statutory and rule interpretation principles)
In re Gil–De la Madrid, 817 F.3d 371 (1st Cir.) (timing issues when cases are dismissed and reinstated)
In re Mazik, 592 B.R. 812 (Bankr. E.D. Pa.) (addressing Rule 3002(c)(6) and omitted creditors)
In re Wulff, 598 B.R. 459 (Bankr. E.D. Wis.) (interpreting amended Rule 3002(c)(6))
In re Edgefield Inn, LLC, 521 B.R. 116 (Bankr. D.S.C.) (distinguishing Chapter 11 claim-extension discretion from Chapter 13)
In re Kristiniak, 208 B.R. 132 (Bankr. E.D. Pa.) (unscheduled creditor not discharged when lacking timely notice)