In re: Oscar Jimenez Gonzalez and Doris Haydee Cordero Reyes

• Court: United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Puerto Rico
• Decided: November 26, 2019
• Docket: 11-06641
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 2 3 IN RE: CASE NO. 11-06641-BKT11 4 5 OSCAR JIMENEZ GONZALEZ, Chapter 11 6 DORIS HAYDEE CORDERO REYES 7 Debtor(s) FILED & ENTERED ON 11/26/2019 8 9 OPINION & ORDER 10 Before the court is the United States of America, on behalf of the Internal Revenue 11 Service’s (“IRS”), Motion to Reopen the Chapter 11 Case [Dkt. No. 309]. The above captioned 12 13 case was filed on August 5, 2011[Dkt. No. 1], the plan was confirmed on May 22, 2013[Dkt. No. 14 268], and the final decree was entered, closing the case, on October 3, 2014 [Dkt. No. 307]. The 15 Debtors havenot yet received a discharge. For the reasons stated below IRS’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 19 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 5010. In turn, 11 U.S.C. § 350(b) provides that “[a] case may be reopened in the 20 court in which such case was closed to administer assets, to accord relief to the debtor, or for other 21 cause.” 11 U.S.C. § 350(b). In Ludvigsen v. Osborne (In re Ludvigsen), No. MB 14-039, 2015 22 Bankr. LEXIS 2048 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. Jan. 16, 2015), the First Circuit Appellate Panel stated that a 23 24 bankruptcy court properly exercisesits discretionary authority to reopen a closed bankruptcy case 25 when it does so to determine a substantive dispute on its merits, but does not exercise proper discretionary authority when only technical defectswith the closed case are at issue. Further, when 1 1 determining whether to exercise its discretionary authority, the court should look at each Section 2 350(b) motion on a fact-by-fact basis. Id.at page 4 (citing,In re Dalezios, 507 B.R. 54, 58 (Bankr. 3 D. Mass. 2014). “It is well settled that the decision to reopen a case is within the sound discretion 4 of the bankruptcy court.” Mass. Dept. of Revenue v. Crocker, 362 B.R. 49, 53 (1stCir. BAP 2007) 5 6 “This discretion depends upon the circumstances of the individual case and accords with the 7 equitable nature of all bankruptcy proceedings.” Id.(internal quotations and citation omitted); see 8 also, In re Dalezios, 507 B.R. 54, 58 (Bankr.D.Mass.2014) (“The decision to reopen should be 9 made on a case-by-case basis based on the particular circumstances and equities of a case, and 10 should be left to the sole discretion of bankruptcy court.”). 11 12 Thus, it is well established in the case law of the First Circuit that the court has discretion 13 to decide whether to grant the reopening of a closed case. As the First Circuit stated in Colonial 14 Sur. Co. v. Weizman, 564 F.3d 526, 532 (1st Cir. 2009), the moving party bears the burden of 15 demonstrating sufficient cause to reopen. A bankruptcy court considering a motion to reopen 16 17 should examine whether the moving party would be entitled to pursue the cause of action for which 18 it seeks the reopening. If the movant cannot prevail on the merits of the action to be pursued as a 19 matter of law, reopening the case would serve no purpose and the motion to reopen should be 20 denied. In re Gagne, 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 4706, at 2 (Bankr.D.Me. Dec.16, 2010). 21 Courts generally consider a number of factors in determining whether to reopen a case: the 22 23 length of time that the case was closed...; whether a non-bankruptcy forum, such as state court, has 24 the ability to determine the issue sought to be posed by the debtor...; whether prior litigation in 25 bankruptcy court implicitly determined that the state court would be the appropriate forum to determine the rights, post-bankruptcy, of the parties; whether any parties would be prejudiced were 2 1 || the case reopened or not reopened; the extent of the benefit which the debtor seeks to achieve b reopening; and whether it is clear at the outset that the debtor would not be entitled to any relie 3 after the case were reopened. In re Crocker, 362 B.R. at 53 (citations omitted). 4 5 In the case before us, IRS has not provided the court with any information as to the specifics 6 || of its request. IRS’ motion is insufficient for the court to determine whether reopening the case is 7 || necessary. There is no doubt that IRS has not met the necessary burden of proof. Accordingly, th 8 IRS’ Motion to Reopen the Chapter 11 Case is hereby DENIED. 9 10 SO ORDERED

11 In San Juan, Puerto Rico this 26" day of November 2019. 12 Ss He 14 Brian K. Tester U.S. Bankruptcy Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25