In re: Lee Min Ho Chen

• Court: United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Puerto Rico
• Decided: October 13, 2016
• Docket: 11-08170
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 2

3 IN RE: CASE NO. 11-08170 4

5 LEE MIN HO CHEN CHAPTER 11

6 Debtor(s) FILED & ENTERED ON 10/13/2016 7

9 OPINION & ORDER 10 Before the court is Specialized Loan Servicing’s Motion to Reopen the Chapter 11 Case 11 (“Movant”) [Dkt. No. 299]. The above captioned case was filed on September 26, 2011, the plan 12 was confirmed on February 8, 2013 [Dkt. No. 243], and the final decree was entered, closing the 13 14 case, on October 28, 2013 [Dkt. No. 296]. The Debtor has not yet received a discharge. For the 15 reasons stated below Specialized Loan Servicing’s motion is denied. 16 Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 5010 provides, in relevant part, that “[a] case may 17 be reopened on motion of the debtor or other party in interest pursuant to § 350(b) of the Code.” 18 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 5010. In turn, 11 U.S.C. § 350(b) provides that “[a] case may be reopened in 19 the court in which such case was closed to administer assets, to accord relief to the debtor, or for 20 other cause.” 11 U.S.C. § 350(b). Recently, in In re Ludvigsen, WL 3733193 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 21 22 Jan. 16, 2015), the First Circuit Appellate Panel stated that a bankruptcy court properly exercises 23 its discretionary authority to reopen a closed bankruptcy case when it does so to determine a 24 substantive dispute on its merits, but does not exercise proper discretionary authority when only 25 technical defects with the closed case are at issue. Further, when determining whether to exercise 26 its discretionary authority, the court should look at each Section 350(b) motion on a fact-by-fact 27 1 basis. Id. at page 4 (citing In re Dalezios, 507 B.R. 54, 58 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2014). “It is well 2 settled that the decision to reopen a case is within the sound discretion of the bankruptcy court.” 3 Mass. Dept. of Revenue v. Crocker, 362 B.R. 49, 53 (1st Cir. BAP 2007) “This discretion 4 depends upon the circumstances of the individual case and accords with the equitable nature of 5 all bankruptcy proceedings.” Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted); see also In re 6 Dalezios, 507 B .R. 54, 58 (Bankr.D.Mass.2014) (“The decision to reopen should be made on a 7 8 case-by-case basis based on the particular circumstances and equities of a case, and should be 9 left to the sole discretion of bankruptcy court.”). 10 Thus, it is well established in the case law of the First Circuit that the court has discretion 11 to decide whether to grant the reopening of a closed case. As the First Circuit stated in Colonial 12 Sur. Co. v. Weizman, 564 F.3d 526, 532 (1st Cir. 2009), the moving party bears the burden of 13 demonstrating sufficient cause to reopen. A bankruptcy court considering a motion to reopen 14 should examine whether the moving party would be entitled to pursue the cause of action for 15 16 which it seeks the reopening. If the movant cannot prevail on the merits of the action to be 17 pursued as a matter of law, reopening the case would serve no purpose and the motion to reopen 18 should be denied. In re Gagne, 2010 Bankr.LEXIS 4706, at 2 (Bankr.D.Me. Dec.16, 2010). 19 Courts generally consider a number of factors in determining whether to reopen a case: 20 the length of time that the case was closed ...; whether a non-bankruptcy forum, such as state 21 court, has the ability to determine the issue sought to be posed by the debtor ...; whether prior 22 litigation in bankruptcy court implicitly determined that the state court would be the appropriate 23 24 forum to determine the rights, post-bankruptcy, of the parties; whether any parties would be 25 prejudiced were the case reopened or not reopened; the extent of the benefit which the debtor 26 seeks to achieve by reopening; and whether it is clear at the outset that the debtor would not be 27 1 entitled to any relief after the case were reopened. In re Crocker, 362 B.R. at 53 (citations * || omitted). 3 In the case before us, Movant has not provided the court with any information as to th specifics of its request. The motion contains the statement “SNL’s request to reopen the cas

é relates to Debtor’s default with the terms of the confirmed plan.” That sole declaration, in and o

7 ||itself, is insufficient for the court to determine whether reopening the case is necessary. There i 8 ||no doubt that Movant has not met the necessary burden of proof. 9 SO ORDERED San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 13th day of October, 2016. 11

13 Brian K. Tester 14 U.S. Bankruptcy Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 -3-