FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
KARLA ALIZADEH AZARDOUST, No. 1-85-01130
v. A.P. No. 1-88-0141
KARLA ALIZADEH AZARDOUST,
Memorandum of Decision and Order
On May 26, 1988, the court issued an order for a meeting of creditors combined with several
notices. One notice was that the last day to file a complaint to object to the debtor's discharge
was August 31, 1988. This notice was clearly in error, as the date set for the meeting of
creditors was June 2, 1988. Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 4004(a), such complaints are required
to be filed within 60 days of the first date set for the meeting of creditors.
On June 6, 1988, the court issued an amended order changing the date for the meeting of
creditors. The space left for notice of the last day to file objections to discharge was left blank.
The complaint in this case objecting to discharge was filed August 29, 1988. Since the last
day to timely file the action pursuant to Rule 4004(a) was August 5, 1988, the debtor seeks its
Plaintiff argues that the court ordered
the deadline to be August 31, but this is not so. The
only order in the document relied upon is the order in the upper portion that the debtors appear
for examination. The remainder of the document is a mere notice, which was prepared
incorrectly by the clerk. The complaint in this matter was not timely filed; the only issue is
whether the Court can use its equitable powers to allow the action to proceed notwithstanding
In this circuit, a bankruptcy court generally has no power to allow a late-filed objection to
discharge, regardless of the equities. Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b)(3); In re Hill
(9th Cir.1987) 811
F.2d 484. However, dicta in case law indicates a sole exception where a late complaint is the
result of the plaintiff's good faith reliance on an erroneous statement of the court. In re Hill
supra, at 487; In re Ricketts
(9th Cir. BAP 1987) 80 B.R. 495, 497. Based on this dicta, the
Court will permit the action to proceed if plaintiff demonstrates good faith reliance on the
Because plaintiff wrongly argued that the action was timely, he presented no declarations or
other proof of good faith reliance on the incorrect notice. Accordingly, further proceedings are
necessary to resolve this motion. Defendant may yet prevail if she can, for instance, show that
she warned plaintiff of the error in the notice.
A further hearing shall be held on December 16, 1988, at 9:00 A.M. After that hearing, the
instant motion will be denied if plaintiff demonstrates good faith reliance on the erroneous notice.
Otherwise, the motion will be granted. Declarations and any other pleadings relating to the
motion shall be filed no later than December 12, 1988.
Dated: November 13, 1988 ______________________