Yip v. Soler (In re Soler), 490 B.R. 629

Trustee filed adversary to object to Debtor Soler's discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727; complaint filed August 9, 2012, one day after the August 8, 2012 deadline set by court orders.
Initial deadlines were established by two orders extending the deadline under Rules 4007(c) and 4004(a) (ECF #63, #75).
Court acknowledged that Rule 4004(a) requires filing within 60 days, but allowed extensions for cause under Rule 9006(b).
Rule 9006(b)(1) permits extension for excusable neglect after expiration of the deadline; Rule 9006(b)(3) restricts extensions to the scope of specified rules.
Trustee moved for extension nunc pro tunc; the Court found excusable neglect due to calendaring error by counsel’s legal assistant, extending the deadline to August 9, 2012.
Defendant later moved to reconsider; the Court corrected a citation error but affirmed the ultimate ruling denying dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May the Court extend the 60-day deadline nunc pro tunc under Rule 9006(b)(1)?	Trustee seeks nunc pro tunc extension based on excusable neglect.	Defense argues deadline cannot be extended beyond 4004(a) limits unless allowed by Rule 9006(b) within its scope.	Yes; Court may extend nunc pro tunc under 9006(b)(1) despite 4004(a).
Was the delay excusable neglect warranting extension?	Delay caused by calendaring mistake by Trustee’s counsel’s staff.	No prejudice alleged; delay is minimal but still a delay.	Yes; excusable neglect established; one-day delay allowed extension.
Did the correction of the citation error affect the outcome?	N/A (not argued as affecting result).	Citation error acknowledged.	No impact on ultimate decision; ruling remains intact.

In re Alton, 837 F.2d 457 (11th Cir. 1988) (extension of deadlines under Rule 9006(b) after initial extension may be allowed; absolute deadlines discussed)
In re Chira, 343 B.R. 361 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.2006) (court may extend § 365(d)(1)deadline after an extension; supports extension by order under 9006(b)(1))
In re Pan American, 567 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2009) (post-extension deadlines can be adjusted under Rule 9006(b))
Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (Sup. Ct. 2004) (timeliness and jurisdictional issues; relation to deadline extensions)