Case No. 07-59818.United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.
November 1, 2010
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REOPEN AND FOR RECONSIDERATION
THOMAS TUCKER, Bankruptcy Judge
This case is before the Court on Debtors’ “Amended Motion to Reopen Case,” filed on June 30, 2010 (Docket # 51, the “Motion”), [1] which this Court construes as a motion to reopen the case and for reconsideration of, and for relief from, the April 10, 2009 Order dismissing this case (Docket # 43).
The Court having reviewed and considered the Motion, and
The Court finds that the Motion fails to demonstrate a palpable defect by which the Court and the parties have been misled, and that a different disposition of the case must result from a correction thereof. See Local Rule 9024-1(a)(3).
The Court finds also that the allegations in the Motion do not establish excusable neglect under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1), FedR.Bankr.P. 9024, or any other valid ground for relief from the order dismissing this case.
In addition, the Court finds and concludes the following. First, the Motion was not filed within a reasonable time after the order dismissing this case, as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c)(1). Nor was the Motion filed within one year after the order dismissing this case was
Page 2
entered and the case was closed, as required by Civil Rule 60(c)(1) for a motion based on Civil Rule 60(b)(1), (2), or (3). Rather, the Motion was filed over one year and two months after entry of the dismissal order on April 10, 2009 and after this case was closed on April 21, 2009. And the Court’s records show that notice of both the dismissal order and the order vacating Debtors’ discharge was given to debtor’s counsel by e-mail notification from the Court’s ECF system on April 10, 2009 (see
the electronic receipts for Docket ## 42 and 43.) Further, the Bankruptcy Noticing Center mailed a notice of both the dismissal of this case and of the order vacating Debtors’ discharge to each of the Debtors, on April 12, 2009 (see Docket ## 45 and 46, each at the second page).
Second, the Motion is incorrect to the extent it asserts that a creditor’s mailing matrix was filed/uploaded before the dismissal of this case. It was not.
Third, the order dismissing this case does not preclude the Debtors from filing a new Chapter 7 bankruptcy case.
Fourth, the delays by Debtors and their counsel in filing and uploading an appropriate creditor’s matrix, and in moving for relief in from the order dismissing this case, constitute unreasonable delay that is prejudicial to creditors.
NOW, THEREFORE,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion (Docket # 51) should be, and is, DENIED.
Signed on November 01, 2010