## Facts

- Nicole Marie Wright filed a Chapter 7 petition on May 20, 2009.
- Wright listed Sep Kamjoo as a general unsecured creditor in her schedules.
- The bankruptcy court clerk sent creditors, including Kamjoo, a notice of the bankruptcy case that set August 17, 2009, as the deadline to (1) file complaints to determine dischargeability of debts and (2) object to Wright’s discharge.
- Kamjoo did not file a motion to extend the deadline before it expired.
- About ten minutes before the deadline, Kamjoo’s lawyer attempted to file an adversary complaint electronically but initially used the wrong electronic filing system.
- The complaint was docketed at 12:09 a.m. on August 18, 2009—nine minutes after the bar date.
- Kamjoo’s complaint sought to except a debt from discharge (including claims under § 523(a)(2) and § 523(a)(6)) and also sought denial of discharge under § 727(a), based on alleged dishonest conduct by Wright.
- Wright moved to dismiss the complaint as untimely under Bankruptcy Rules 4004(a) and 4007(c).
- Kamjoo opposed dismissal, arguing that “technical difficulties” prevented timely filing and asking the court to allow the late complaint based on equity and 11 U.S.C. § 105(a), citing Wright’s alleged dishonesty and unscrupulous acts.
- The bankruptcy court dismissed the complaint as untimely, finding the late filing resulted from counsel’s error (not a qualifying technical failure) and that the allegations of dishonesty were unproven and, regardless, could not preserve claims after the deadline.
- Kamjoo appealed to the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel.

## Issues

1. Whether an adversary complaint filed nine minutes after the Rules 4004(a) and 4007(c) deadlines, due to counsel’s use of the wrong electronic filing system, could be treated as timely based on a claimed e-filing “technical difficulty.”
2. Whether the bankruptcy court could use 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) or equitable considerations—based on alleged debtor dishonesty—to permit a late-filed complaint objecting to discharge and seeking nondischargeability after the bar date expired.

## Decision

- The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing Kamjoo’s complaint as untimely.
- The panel agreed that the complaint was filed after the deadline set by the notice and the Bankruptcy Rules and that Kamjoo had not obtained an extension before the deadline passed.
- The panel agreed that counsel’s mistaken use of the wrong electronic filing system was user error, not a court-system malfunction that would excuse the late filing.
- The panel agreed that the bankruptcy court could not use § 105(a) or general equitable power to revive claims once the Rules 4004(a) and 4007(c) deadlines had expired.
- The panel also accepted the bankruptcy court’s finding that the alleged dishonest and unscrupulous conduct was not proven on the record and did not justify allowing an untimely complaint to proceed.

## Legal Principles

- Bankruptcy Rules 4004(a) (objections to discharge) and 4007(c) (complaints to determine dischargeability) set strict deadlines; a complaint filed after the bar date is subject to dismissal unless a valid extension was obtained.
- A party seeking more time must request an extension before the deadline expires; the bankruptcy court’s ability to extend these deadlines is limited by the Rules.
- User mistakes in electronic filing—such as choosing the wrong filing system or event—do not qualify as a “technical failure” of the court’s electronic filing system that would make a late filing timely.
- 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) permits orders necessary to carry out the Bankruptcy Code, but it does not authorize a court to override explicit procedural time limits after they have expired.
- Allegations of debtor misconduct, especially when not proven, do not permit a court to disregard the bar dates governing § 727 and § 523 litigation.

## Conclusion

Because Kamjoo’s adversary complaint was docketed nine minutes after the Rules 4004(a) and 4007(c) deadlines due to counsel’s own filing error, and because § 105(a) and equity could not extend or disregard the expired bar dates, the Ninth Circuit BAP affirmed dismissal of the complaint as untimely.


Kamjoo v. Wright (In re Wright), 2010 WL 6259968 (2010)