FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RUDY and LORRAINE BRANNON, No. 92-13221
v. A.P. No. 93-1089
RUDY and LORRAINE BRANNON,
Memorandum of Decision
The debtors filed their Chapter 7 petition on December 11, 1992, while state court
proceedings between them and plaintiff Marie Catchpole were pending. The lawsuit was duly
scheduled, and Catchpole was listed as a creditor in care of her attorney. The court set
February 3, 1993, as the date for the first meeting of creditors. Pursuant to FRBP 4007(c), the
bar date for dischargeability actions was Monday, April 5, 1993.
Catchpole clearly knew about the bankruptcy; on January 8, 1993, she filed a motion for
relief from the automatic stay. Such knowledge makes the bar date for dischargeability actions
effective against Catchpole even if, as she argues, she did not receive the formal notice from
the court. In re Price
, 79 B.R. 888 (9th Cir.BAP 1987).
On April 6, 1993, one day after the bar date, Catchpole filed her complaint in this adversary
proceeding alleging a debt nondischargeable under section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.
She argues that she can show excusable neglect for the failure to file a timely complaint.
However, the court is not permitted to allow a late complaint even if there is excusable neglect.
In re Hill
, 811 F.2d 484 (9th Cir.1987). FRBP 9006(b)(3) specifically excludes actions
pursuant to FRCP 4007(c) from the excusable neglect provisions of Rule 9006(b)(1) cited by
Catchpole. Moreover, none of Catchpole's actions in the case, including the filing of the stay
relief motion, can substitute for a timely complaint. In re Kennerley
, -- F.2d --, 93 C.D.O.S.
3979 (9th Cir.1993).
For the foregoing reasons, this adversary proceeding will be dismissed, with prejudice.
Dated: June 4, 1993 _______________________