In re: Gerald Trey Costello

• Court: United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California
• Decided: January 21, 2026
• Docket: 8:25-ap-01312
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 FILED & ENTERED

4 JAN 21 2026

CLERK U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 6 C B e Y n b t r o a l t l e D i s t r i c D t E o P f U C T a Y li f C or L n E ia RK 7

8 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SANTA ANA DIVISION 11

12 In re: CHAPTER 7

13 Gerald Trey Costello, Case No.: 8:25-bk-11944-SC Adv. No.: 8:25-ap-01312-SC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 15 MOTION TO DISMISS ACTION FOR

16 Debtor(s). FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM [DK. 6]

17 Vacated Hearing: D ate: January 20, 2026 18 Catherine Michelle Davania, Time: 1:30 p.m. 19 Courtroom: 5C Plaintiff(s), 20 v.

21 Gerald Trey Costello, 22 Defendant(s). 23 24 The Court has reviewed Defendant Gerald Trey Costello’s Motion to Dismiss 25 Action for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted Pursuant to 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), as incorporated by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy 27 Procedure 7012 [Dk. 6] ("Motion"), Plaintiff Catherine Michelle DaVania’s Opposition 28 thereto [Dk. 8] ("Opposition"), Plaintiff Catherine Michelle DaVania’s Motion for Order 1 Deeming Adversary Complaint Timely Filed [Dk. 3] ("Motion to Deem Complaint 2 Timely"), and Defendant Gerald Trey Costello’s Opposition to the Motion to Deem the 3 Complaint Timely Filed [Dk. 5] ("Opposition to Motion to Deem Complaint Timely"). The 4 Court has also reviewed the dockets in this adversary proceeding and in the underlying 5 bankruptcy case, including the Notices of Electronic Filing and the Clerk’s Notice of 6 Error issued in connection with Plaintiff’s filings. Based on the pleadings and the record, 7 the Court finds that this matter is appropriate for disposition without a hearing, and for 8 the reasons set forth below, GRANTS the Motion and VACATES the January 20, 2026 9 hearing. 10 I. General Background and Procedural Posture 11 Debtor Gerald Trey Costello ("Debtor" or "Defendant") filed a voluntary petition 12 for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code on July 16, 2025. Plaintiff Catherine 13 Michelle DaVania ("Plaintiff") was properly scheduled on Schedule F and received 14 notice of the bankruptcy filing. The deadline to file a complaint to determine the 15 dischargeability of a debt under 11 U.S.C. § 523(c) was October 27, 2025. 16 On October 27, 2025, Plaintiff electronically filed a document on the docket of the 17 main bankruptcy case using the CM/ECF event code "Third-Party Complaint." The 18 docket reflects the entry as "Third-Party Complaint by Catherine Michelle DaVania 19 against Gerald Trey Costello" (Entered: 10/27/2025). When opened, the document itself 20 is captioned "COMPLAINT FOR NON-DISCHARGEABILITY UNDER 11 U.S.C. §§ 21 523(a)(6) AND 523(a)(2)(A)" and seeks a determination that Plaintiff’s claim is excepted 22 from discharge. 23 Notwithstanding the document’s caption and substantive allegations, Plaintiff did 24 not, on October 27, 2025, commence an adversary proceeding through the Court’s 25 CM/ECF system, did not pay the adversary filing fee, and no adversary proceeding 26 number was assigned on that date. 27 On the morning of October 28, 2025, procedurally, the Clerk issued a Notice to 28 Filer of Error and/or Deficient Document, stating that the document had been filed in the 1 incorrect case and instructing Plaintiff to withdraw the document and re-file it in the 2 correct case. Later that same day, Plaintiff opened an adversary proceeding, paid the 3 required filing fee, and re-filed the complaint. The Notice of Electronic Filing reflects that 4 the adversary complaint was filed on October 28, 2025 at 3:09 p.m. 5 Plaintiff thereafter filed a Motion for Order Deeming Adversary Complaint Timely 6 on October 29, 2025 [Dk. 3], relying primarily on Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7 5005(c). That motion was never set for hearing. Defendant filed an Opposition to the 8 Motion to Deem Complaint Timely on November 14, 2025 [Dk. 5]. On December 1, 9 2025, Defendant filed the present Motion to Dismiss [Dk. 6], asserting that the 10 adversary complaint was untimely under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4007(c) 11 and therefore failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Plaintiff filed an 12 Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss on December 29, 2025 [Dk. 8]. 13 II. The Parties’ Positions 14 The parties’ positions in both motions are largely duplicative. 15 a. Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Complaint Timely 16 In the Motion to Deem Complaint Timely, Plaintiff asserted that although the 17 adversary complaint was not opened under a separate adversary case number until 18 October 28, 2025, the complaint itself was electronically delivered to the Court on 19 October 27, 2025, the Rule 4007(c) deadline, when it was filed on the docket of the 20 main bankruptcy case. Plaintiff characterized the filing error as a ministerial CM/ECF 21 routing mistake resulting from the selection of an incorrect event code and argued that 22 Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 5005(c) authorizes the Court, in the interest of 23 justice, to deem the complaint filed as of the date it was originally delivered to the Court. 24 Plaintiff emphasized that the complaint filed on October 28, 2025 in the adversary 25 proceeding was identical to the document filed in the main case on October 27, 2025, 26 that the error was promptly corrected after receipt of the Clerk’s Notice of Error, and that 27 Defendant suffered no prejudice because notice of the filing was received through the 28 1 Court’s electronic noticing system. The Motion to Deem the Complaint Timely was 2 never set for hearing by Plaintiff. 3 b. Defendant’s Opposition to the Motion to Deem Complaint Timely 4 On November 14, 2025, Defendant filed an Opposition to the Motion to Deem 5 Complaint Timely. In that opposition, Defendant argued that Rule 5005(c) does not 6 apply where a party fails to comply with the mandatory procedures for commencing an 7 adversary proceeding and that filing a complaint in the main bankruptcy case does not 8 constitute commencement of a nondischargeability action under Federal Rule of 9 Bankruptcy Procedure 4007(c). Defendant further asserted that the Court lacks 10 authority to retroactively deem an adversary proceeding timely once the Rule 4007(c) 11 deadline has expired, that Plaintiff’s arguments improperly seek an extension of the 12 deadline in violation of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9006(b)(3), and that 13 equitable considerations such as intent, diligence, or lack of prejudice are legally 14 irrelevant under controlling Ninth Circuit authority. 15 c. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 16 On December 1, 2025, Defendant filed the present Motion. In the Motion, 17 Defendant argues that Rule 4007(c) required Plaintiff to file a nondischargeability 18 complaint no later than October 27, 2025, that Plaintiff failed to commence an adversary 19 proceeding by that date, and that the Court lacks discretion to excuse the late filing. 20 Defendant further argues that filing a complaint in the main bankruptcy case does not 21 satisfy Rule 4007(c), that Rule 5005(c) cannot be used to deem the adversary timely, 22 and that equitable considerations such as intent, lack of prejudice, and CM/ECF issues 23 are legally irrelevant. Defendant relies on Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 24 4007(c) and 9006(b)(3), as well as controlling case law, including In re Rhodes, 71 B.R. 25 206 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1987), Anwar v. Johnson, 720 F.3d 1183 (9th Cir. 2013), and In re 26 Chin Kun An, 526 B.R. 24 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2015). 27 /// 28 1 d. Plaintiff’s Opposition 2 Plaintiff filed an Opposition on December 29, 2025. Plaintiff opposes dismissal, 3 arguing that the complaint was timely delivered to the Court on October 27, 2025, 4 notwithstanding its placement on the main case docket. Plaintiff characterizes the filing 5 error as a ministerial CM/ECF routing mistake, emphasizes that the error was promptly 6 corrected on October 28, 2025 after receipt of the Clerk’s Notice of Error, and contends 7 that Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 5005(c) permits the Court, in the interest of 8 justice, to deem the complaint filed as of its original delivery date. Plaintiff maintains that 9 she is not seeking an extension of the Rule 4007(c) deadline, but rather a corrective 10 remedy to conform the docket to the date the complaint was delivered to the Court and 11 argues that Defendant suffered no prejudice. 12 III. Legal Standards1 13 Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4007(c) governs the time for filing a 14 complaint to determine the dischargeability of a debt under 11 U.S.C. § 523(c). The rule 15 provides that such a complaint must be filed no later than 60 days after the first date set 16 for the meeting of creditors under 11 U.S.C. § 341(a). The rule further provides that the 17 Court may extend the deadline for cause, but only if a motion seeking an extension is 18 filed before the expiration of the deadline. 19 Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9006(b)(3) expressly limits the Court’s 20 authority to enlarge the time for taking action under Rule 4007(c) "only to the extent and 21 under the conditions stated" in that rule. As a result, once the Rule 4007(c) deadline has 22 expired, the Court lacks discretion to permit a late-filed nondischargeability complaint or 23 to retroactively extend the deadline. 24 The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel and the Ninth Circuit Court of 25 Appeals have consistently held that the Rule 4007(c) deadline is strict and mandatory 26

27 1 Although the Motion is brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), as incorporated by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7012, the basis for dismissal is the untimeliness of the adversary 28 complaint under Rule 4007(c), which is apparent from the pleadings and the docket. Where a complaint is barred by a filing deadline that is strictly enforced as a matter of law, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate. 1 as to the timing of commencement of a nondischargeability action. A creditor seeking a 2 determination of dischargeability under §§ 523(a)(2), (4), or (6) must either file a timely 3 adversary complaint or file a motion to extend the deadline before it expires. If neither 4 occurs, the bankruptcy court has no discretion to allow the complaint to proceed. In re 5 Rhodes, 71 B.R. 206, 207-08 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1987). 6 The Ninth Circuit reaffirmed this principle in Anwar v. Johnson, holding that the 7 60-day deadline imposed by Rule 4007(c) is "strict" and "without qualification" cannot be 8 extended unless a motion is filed before the deadline expires. Anwar v. Johnson, 720 9 F.3d 1183, 1187-88 (9th Cir. 2013). The court further held that equitable considerations, 10 including excusable neglect, lack of prejudice to the debtor, or difficulties with electronic 11 filing, are legally irrelevant and cannot authorize relief from an untimely filing. Id. at 12 1188. 13 Consistent with this authority, courts within the Central District of California have 14 persuasively held that where an adversary proceeding is not timely commenced through 15 the court’s CM/ECF procedures, a nondischargeability action is untimely. Filing a 16 complaint in the main bankruptcy case, without opening an adversary proceeding by the 17 Rule 4007(c) deadline, does not satisfy the rule and renders the complaint untimely. In 18 re Chin Kun An, 526 B.R. 24, 28-31 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2015). 19 Because the Rule 4007(c) deadline is not subject to post-expiration enlargement, 20 a complaint that it not timely commenced as required fails. Where the untimeliness of 21 the complaint appears on the face of the pleadings and the docket, dismissal under 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), as incorporated by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy 23 Procedure 7012, is appropriate.2 24 IV. Discussion 25 a. Failure to Commence an Adversary Proceeding by the Deadline 26 The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel has held that a creditor seeking a 27 determination of dischargeability under §§ 523(a)(2), (4), or (6) must either file the 28

2 Fed. R. Bankr. P. ("FRBP") 7012(b) incorporates FRCP 12(b) and applies it to adversary proceedings. 1 complaint within the Rule 4007(c) deadline or move for an extension before the deadline 2 expires, and that a bankruptcy court has no discretion to allow a complaint filed after the 3 deadline. In re Rhodes, 71 B.R. 206, 207-08 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1987). The Ninth Circuit 4 reaffirmed the strict nature of Rule 4007(c) in Anwar v. Johnson, holding that the 60-day 5 deadline is "strict" and "without qualification" cannot be extended unless a motion is filed 6 before the deadline expires. Anwar v. Johnson, 720 F.3d 1183, 1187-88 (9th Cir. 2013). 7 The Anwar court further held that the reason for missing the deadline, lack of prejudice 8 to the debtor, and difficulties with electronic filing are immaterial. Id. at 1188. 9 Here, it is undisputed that the Rule 4007(c) deadline expired on October 27, 10 2025 and that Plaintiff did not open an adversary proceeding until October 28, 2025. 11 The question, therefore, is whether Plaintiff’s October 27, 2025 main-case filing 12 constituted the timely "fil[ing]" of "a complaint to determine dischargeability" within the 13 meaning of Rule 4007(c), notwithstanding that the adversary proceeding itself was not 14 opened and the complaint was not filed as an adversary until October 28, 2025. The 15 Court therefore must determine whether a complaint electronically filed in the main case 16 but not processed through the adversary-opening procedures prescribed by the Court’s 17 CM/ECF system, constitutes a timely commencement of a nondischargeability action 18 under Rule 4007(c). 19 b. Filing in the Main Case Does Not Commence an Adversary 20 Proceeding3 21 Plaintiff’s central contention is straightforward: because Rule 4007(c) states that 22 a complaint "shall be filed" by the deadline, the filing of the identical complaint on the 23 main bankruptcy docket on October 27, 2025 should be treated as compliance with the 24 rule, even though the adversary proceeding was not opened until October 28, 2025. 25 The difficulty with that position is that controlling Ninth Circuit authority describes what it 26

27 3 At least one court in the Central District has taken a different approach under similar factual circumstances. See In re Bey, 2014 WL 4071042 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2014) (denying dismissal 28 where a pleading captioned as a nondischargeability complaint was timely filed on the main bankruptcy case docket, but the adversary proceeding was not formally opened until after the Rule 4007(c) deadline). Bey did not cite Anwar v. Johnson, 720 F.3d 1183 (9th Cir. 2013) and is not binding on this Court. 1 means to "file" a nondischargeability complaint in a mandatory electronic filing system, 2 and that description requires completion of the process by which nondischargeability 3 complaints are required to be filed and processed under the Court’s CM/ECF system.4 4 In Anwar v. Johnson, the Ninth Circuit addressed timeliness under Rule 4007(c) 5 in the context of a mandatory electronic filing system. Anwar reiterates that Rule 6 4007(c) is "strict" and "without qualification" cannot be extended unless a motion is filed 7 before the deadline expires. Anwar v. Johnson, 720 F.3d 1183, 1187-88 (9th Cir. 2013). 8 Although Anwar arose in the context of a complete failure to file a nondischargeability 9 complaint before the deadline, the Ninth Circuit’s discussion of the electronic filing 10 process informs what it means to “file” such a complaint in a mandatory CM/ECF 11 system. 12 Specifically, Anwar explains that "[a] creditor seeking to electronically file a 13 nondischargeability complaint must complete two steps: First, the creditor must open an 14 ‘adversary proceeding’ in the bankruptcy court’s electronic filing system. Second, the 15 creditor must electronically file a nondischargeability complaint." Id. at 1185. Anwar also 16 states that "the deadline for all electronic filings is midnight local time on the day set by 17 the relevant order of the bankruptcy court." Id. (citing Rule 9006(a)(4)(A)). On that 18 framework, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal where counsel did not successfully 19 complete the electronic filing process by the midnight deadline, emphasizing that the 20 shortness of the delay and the reason for it were immaterial. Id. at 1186-88. 21 The Court’s own published guidance is consistent with this understanding. The 22 Court’s Central Guide describes the steps required to open an adversary proceeding 23 through CM/ECF (including selecting "Open AP Case," identifying parties, selecting the 24 nature of suit, attaching the complaint and adversary cover sheet, and completing fee 25 payment), and the Court’s CM/ECF Manual explains that once an adversary proceeding 26 is properly commenced, the Court’s automated process issues the Summons and 27

28 4 Although Anwar arose in a different district, its description of the required CM/ECF steps to electronically file a nondischargeability complaint, opening an adversary proceeding and then filing the complaint in that adversary, applies equally in this District’s mandatory electronic filing system. 1 Notice of Status Conference via Notice of Electronic Filing. These procedures 2 underscore that a nondischargeability complaint is not "filed" and processed as such 3 merely by placing the document on the main-case docket under an incorrect event 4 code; the required adversary-opening procedures is the mechanism that triggers the 5 summons process and related notices. 6 That reasoning addresses the precise conceptual question raised here: whether 7 a paper can be treated as "filed" for Rule 4007(c) purposes when it has been 8 transmitted through CM/ECF in a manner that does not complete the required steps to 9 file a nondischargeability complaint as such. Under Anwar’s description, the act of 10 "electronically fil[ing] a nondischargeability complaint" is not accomplished by placing 11 the document somewhere on the bankruptcy docket under an incorrect event or in an 12 incorrect procedural vehicle; it is accomplished only when the filer completes the 13 system’s two required steps, opening the adversary proceeding and then filing the 14 complaint, before the applicable deadline. Id. at 1185. 15 In re Chin Kun An, a decision from this District addressing a materially similar 16 CM/ECF scenario, reinforces the same principle. There, the creditor filed a pleading on 17 the main case docket by the deadline but did not successfully open an adversary 18 proceeding until the following day. In re Chin Kun An, 526 B.R. 24, 27-31 (Bankr. C.D. 19 Cal. 2015). The court rejected the argument, on the record before it, that a main-case 20 filing satisfied the Rule 4007(c), explaining that the operative requirement was the timely 21 commencement of the nondischargeability action in the proper procedural posture; the 22 record showed "no filing fee was paid, no adversary number was assigned and no 23 adversary docket was created until the following day," and the creditor therefore "did not 24 commence an adversary proceeding by the required deadline." Id. at 27-31. The court 25 further explained that, in a mandatory electronic filing system, the creditor must 26 complete the steps that actually open the adversary proceeding and file the complaint in 27 that adversary, and it treated completion of those steps after the deadline as untimely. 28 Id. at 28-31. 1 The record here tracks that same sequence. On October 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed 2 a document titled "Third-Party Complaint" on the main case docket. On that date, 3 Plaintiff did not open an adversary proceeding, did not pay the adversary filing fee, and 4 no adversary case number was assigned. The Clerk’s Notice of Error the next morning 5 stated that the document had been filed in the incorrect case and instructed Plaintiff to 6 withdraw and re-file in the correct case. Plaintiff then opened the adversary proceeding, 7 paid the fee, and re-filed the complaint; the Notice of Electronic Filing reflects the 8 adversary complaint was filed at 3:09 p.m. on October 28, 2025. Under Anwar’s two- 9 step description of what it means to "electronically file a nondischargeability complaint," 10 and under Chin Kun An’s application of that concept to a mis-docketed main-case filing, 11 Plaintiff’s nondischargeability complaint was not "filed" within the meaning of Rule 12 4007(c) until the adversary proceeding was opened and the complaint was filed as an 13 adversary on October 28, 2025, one day after the October 27, 2025 deadline. 14 For these reasons, Plaintiff’s October 27, 2025 main-case filing does not satisfy 15 Rule 4007(c)’s requirement that a complaint "shall be filed" by the deadline, because 16 under Anwar and Chin Kun An the nondischargeability complaint is "filed" for Rule 17 4007(c) purposes when the filer completes the electronic filing steps that open the 18 adversary proceeding and file the complaint as such, which did not occur until October 19 28, 2025. 20 This strict construction of Rule 4007(c) also serves important structural and 21 procedural purposes. The requirement that a nondischargeability action be commenced 22 by the timely opening of an adversary proceeding ensures that the filing of such a 23 complaint triggers the issuance of a summons, establishes a clear response deadline, 24 and provides formal notice to the debtor within a court-supervised procedural 25 framework. Permitting a creditor to satisfy Rule 4007(c) by filing a complaint on the main 26 bankruptcy docket, without opening an adversary proceeding, would undermine the 27 bright-line nature of the rule and create the risk that a creditor could unilaterally control 28 the timing of summons issuance and service. The Bankruptcy Rules are designed to 1 avoid such uncertainty by requiring strict compliance with the procedures for 2 commencing an adversary proceeding, thereby promoting predictability, uniformity, and 3 fairness in the administration of dischargeability deadlines. 4 c. Rule 5005(c) Does Not Permit Relief 5 Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 5005(c) addresses the situation where a 6 paper intended to be filed with the clerk is erroneously delivered to one of the specified 7 recipients (e.g., the United States trustee, the trustee, the trustee’s attorney, or a judge), 8 and permits the Court, "in the interests of justice," to deem the "original receipt date" 9 shown on such a paper as the date it was filed with the clerk. FRBP 5005(c)(1), (3). It 10 does not address mis-designation of an event code within CM/ECF, and does not 11 override Rules 4007(c) and 9006(b)(3) as construed in Anwar. Even assuming Rule 12 5005(c) could be analogized to an electronic mis-docketing or CM/ECF routing error, it 13 does not provide a basis, consistent with Rules 4007(c) and 9006(b)(3) as construed in 14 Anwar, to deem timely a nondischargeability complaint where the required adversary- 15 opening and adversary-filing steps were not completed by the Rule 4007(c) deadline. 16 Plaintiff’s reliance on Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 5005(c) does not 17 alter the result.5 Although Plaintiff characterizes the issue as a ministerial CM/ECF 18 routing mistake and requests a "corrective" deeming remedy rather than an "extension," 19

20 5 Rule 5005(c) provides as follows: (c) When a Paper Is Erroneously Filed or Delivered. 21 (1) Paper Intended for the Clerk. If a paper intended to be filed with the clerk is erroneously delivered to a person listed below, that person must note on it the date of receipt and promptly send it to the clerk: 22 • the United States trustee; • the trustee; 23 • the trustee's attorney; • a bankruptcy judge; 24 • a district judge; • the clerk of the bankruptcy appellate panel; or 25 • the clerk of the district court. 26 (2) Paper Intended for the United States Trustee. If a paper intended for the United States trustee is erroneously delivered to the clerk or to another person listed in (1), the clerk or that person must note on 27 it the date of receipt and promptly send it to the United States trustee. (3) Applicable Filing Date. In the interests of justice, the court may order that the original receipt date 28 shown on a paper erroneously delivered under (1) or (2) be deemed the date it was filed with the clerk or sent to the United States trustee. 1 the effect of the requested relief would be to treat as timely an adversary proceeding 2 that was not commenced by the Rule 4007(c) deadline. Under controlling Ninth Circuit 3 authority, the Court lacks discretion to grant that kind of post-deadline relief. Anwar v. 4 Johnson, 720 F.3d at 1187-88; In re Rhodes, 71 B.R. at 207-08. 5 In re Chin Kun An, as noted above, is particularly instructive on this point 6 because it involved precisely the kind of argument raised here, i.e., that a complaint was 7 "filed" on the deadline but was misfiled or not properly opened as an adversary until the 8 next day, and that the defect should be excused based on the filing circumstances and 9 subsequent correction. In re Chin Kun An, 526 B.R. at 28-31. There, the court 10 emphasized that the relevant deadline was for the creditor to commence an adversary 11 proceeding by the deadline, and it rejected the contention that the court could treat the 12 action as timely where the adversary proceeding was not opened until the next day. Id. 13 at 29-31. The court’s reasoning applies with equal force here: the deadline required 14 timely commencement of an adversary proceeding, and that did not occur. Id. at 30-31. 15 The post-deadline Clerk notice likewise does not supply a basis to deem the 16 adversary timely. Here, the Clerk issued the Notice of Error on the morning of October 17 28, 2025, after the October 27, 2025 deadline had expired, and instructed Plaintiff to 18 withdraw and refile in the correct case. Plaintiff did so promptly, but the adversary 19 proceeding nonetheless was opened one day late. In Chin Kun An, the court rejected 20 reliance on the filing circumstances to excuse a failure to timely commence the 21 adversary proceeding. In re Chin Kun An, 526 B.R. at 29-31. 22 Accordingly, Rule 5005(c) does not provide a mechanism to treat the adversary 23 complaint as timely when the adversary proceeding itself was not opened until October 24 28, 2025, after the Rule 4007(c) deadline of October 27, 2025. 25 /// 26 /// 27 28 1 d. Equitable Considerations Are Irrelevant 2 Plaintiff's remaining points, timely delivery to the Court through CM/ECF on 3 || October 27, 2025, prompt correction on October 28, 2025 after the Clerk’s Notice of 4 || Error, the asserted ministerial nature of the error, and the asserted absence of 5 || prejudice, do not change the analysis. Ninth Circuit authority makes clear that the Rule 6 ||4007(c) deadline is strictly enforced and is not subject to post-deadline enlargement 7 || based or equitable tolling based on considerations such as intent, notice, or lack of 8 || prejudice. Anwar v. Johnson, 720 F.3d at 1188; In re Rhodes, 71 B.R. at 207-08. Under 9 || those authorities, the reason for missing the deadline and the lack of prejudice are 10 || immaterial. Anwar, 720 F.3d at 1188. 11 V. Conclusion 12 For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is GRANTED. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Hit 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Ax Lo 25 Date: January 21, 2026 Scott C. Clarkson United States Bankruptcy Judge 26 27 28