Memorandum of Decision Re: Dischargeability Deadline

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA In re KARLA ALIZADEH AZARDOUST,                                       No. 1-85-01130      Debtor. _________________________/ NAGI DERAKSHESH,      Plaintiff,    v.                                                                                          A.P. No. 1-88-0141 KARLA ALIZADEH AZARDOUST,      Defendant. ___________________________/
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 dismissal.      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 its lateness.      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 erroneous notice.      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. SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 13, 1988                                                                          ______________________                                                                                                                      Alan Jaroslovsky                                                                                                                      U.S. Bankruptcy