Case No. 06-11692.United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division.
October 3, 2006
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REINSTATE
ROBERT GRANT, Bankruptcy Judge
This case was dismissed on September 29, 2006, due to the debtors’ failure to file a scanned copy of the originally signed signature pages as required by the court’s order authorizing electronic case filing. Fifth Amended Order Authorizing Electronic Case Filing ¶ 11. See also, In re King,2006 WL 1994679 *4 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 2006). On September 30, 2006, the debtors filed a motion to reinstate this case apparently asking the court to vacate the order of dismissal and it is that motion which is presently before the court.[1] To the extent the debtors are arguing that the failure to file the required signature pages constituted excusable neglect, under to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the argument fails. Determinations of excusable neglect are equitable taking into account, among other things, whether the reason for the delay was within the reasonable control of the movant, PioneerInvestment Services Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. Partnership,507 U.S. 380, 395, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 1498 (1993), and are addressed to the court’s discretion. Lee v. Village of River Forest,936 F.2d 976, 979 (7th Cir. 1991); Reinsurance Co. of America, Inc.v. Administratia Asigurarilor de Stat, 902 F.2d 1275, 1277 (7th Cir. 1990).
In essence, the motion represents that the failure to file the required signature pages was due
Page 2
to a “technical glitch” involving counsel’s scanner which prevented some of the signature pages from being contained within the documents submitted to the court for filing. Apparently, until receiving notice of the dismissal of this case, counsel did not realize that his scanner failed to perform as he expected. However, had counsel taken a moment to actually look at the documents before sending them to the court, he would have realized that all had not gone as expected and would have easily discovered that the required signature pages were not attached. Indeed, perhaps the single most common error in electronic filing is that the document actually filed with the court is not the document counsel wanted to file. Viewing electronic documents before sending them to the court avoids this problem. That is the reason for the court’s mantra, repeated in its ECF literature, training sessions, and other presentations: “Open the pdf.” Counsel’s failure to review the documents he was sending to the court for filing and any “technical glitch” with the equipment counsel uses does not constitute excusable neglect. See, In reShideler, 2006 WL 2539710 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 2006). Cf., In reSizemore, 341 B.R. 658 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 2006) (counsel’s computer problems do not constitute excusable neglect).
The court also notes that the dismissal of this case was without any type of prejudice. See, 11 U.S.C. § 349(a). Seealso, Johnson v. Indiana Family Social ServiceAdministration, 2006 WL 978982 (D.N.D. Ind. 2006); Rodriguez v.Washington, 1995 WL 593081 (D.N.D. Ill. 1995). Thus, the debtors are free to refile at any time without any restrictions, save those which are automatically associated with filing multiple cases within a 12-month period. See, 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3), (4).
Debtors’ motion to reinstate this case is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Page 1