Molasky v. Bustos (In re Molasky)
- Citation:
- Case No. 11-15060 (9th Cir. September 13, 2012) (Unpublished)
- Tag(s):
-
- Ruling:
- The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that an intervenor can proceed after dismissal of the original party if 1) there is an independent basis for jurisdiction, and 2) unnecessary delay would otherwise result.
Moreover, the Bankruptcy Court failed to recognize that the deadline to file an adversary proceeding complaint under 11 U.S.C. § 523 is discretionary and may be extended with cause. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals set forth five factors Courts must consider in determining § 523 complaint deadline extensions. These are:
(1) whether granting the delay will prejudice the debtor, (2) the length of the delay and its impact on efficient court administration, (3) whether the delay was beyond the reasonable control of the person whose duty it was to perform, (4) whether the creditor acted in good faith, and (5) whether clients should be penalized for their counsel's mistake or neglect.” In re Magouirk, 693 F.2d 948, 951 (9th Cir. 1982).
- Procedural context:
- The District Court for the District of Nevada reversed the Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit vacated the District Court’s Order and remand to the Bankruptcy Court for proceedings consistent with the Ruling above. This disposition is unpublished and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
- Facts:
- The Debtor filed a voluntary bankruptcy petition in which One Cap Holding Corporation (“OneCap”) commenced an adversary proceeding under 11 U.S.C. § 523. Augustine C. Bustos (“Bustos”) intervened in the § 523 complaint. The Bankruptcy Court dismissed Bustos after OneCap was dismissed for failure to prosecute.
- Judge(s):
- Noonan, Marguia, Timlin
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!
