In re Nielsen, 383 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2004)
    Citing the concurrence in Beezley, court holds that failure to schedule a creditor in a no-asset case does not make the debt nondischargeable.

In re Beaty, 306 F.3d 914 (9th Cir. 2002)
    Laches is available as a defense in a § 523(a)(3) action, but the defendant must show extraordinary circumstances and a compelling reason why the action should be barred.
                
In re Staffer, 306 F.3d 967 (9th Cir.2002)
    Under Bankruptcy Rule 4007(b), a § 523(a)(3) complaint can be brought at any time (except where laches is found).  A case need not be reopened to bring a complaint.
        
In re Beezley, 994 F.2d 1433 (9th Cir. 1993)
    Per curiam:  Refusal to reopen proper where it would be a useless act, since listing creditor would not discharge the debt.  
    Concurrence: Reopening was useless because the case was no asset and no bar date and therefore creditor’s debt was discharged under §§ 523(a)(3)(A) and 727(b).

In re Bowen,102 B.R. 752 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1989)

In re Price, 871 F.2d 97 (9th Cir. 1989)
    Notice to creditor’s counsel = notice to creditor.

In re Lochrie, 78 B.R. 257 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1987)
    § 523(a)(3)(b) does not create a separate exception from discharge merely for the debtor’s failure to schedule a creditor. Instead, the creditor must also have a cause of action under § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6).  “Creditor is required” to make a showing of material prejudice to avoid proving its claim under (2), (4), or (6).

In re Fauchier, 71 B.R. 212 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1987)
    Careless error in address on schedule is enough under § 523(a)(3).  Must first decide § 523(a)(3) issue, then decide (2), (4), and (6).

In re Laczko, 37 B.R. 676 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1984), aff’d by In re Laczko, 772 F.2d 912 (9th Cir. 1985), and Laczko v. Gentram, Inc., 772 F.2d 912 (9th Cir. 1985)
    Chapter 7 debtor may not reopen case to add creditors after time for filing document had passed.