In re Sadlier
This text of 262 B.R. 17 (In re Sadlier) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
ORDER
Heard on March 1, 2001, on the Motion of Max Recovery, Inc. (“Max”), to vacate Orders sustaining the Debtors’ objections to Claim numbers 6, 7, and 8. Max [18]*18seeks relief based on an alleged conflict between R.I. LBR 3007-1,1 which allows for a ten day response period to objections to claims, and Fed.R.Bankr.P. 30072 which requires thirty days notice of a hearing on an objection to a claim. After reviewing these two provisions, and listening to the arguments, I find no conflict. The federal rule does not contain a response time for claimants to respond to an objection to claim, and that is the sole purpose for the local rule. Accordingly, Max’s Motion is DENIED on that ground.
At the hearing Max also seemed to argue excusable neglect as a basis for reconsideration. Notwithstanding that its Motion is silent as to that issue, Max is allowed seven (7) days from the date hereof to set forth why reconsideration should be granted on the ground of excusable neglect. See Pioneer Investment Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship., 507 U.S. 380, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993). The Debtors will have seven (7) days thereafter to respond and, if necessary, the matter will be reset for hearing.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
262 B.R. 17, 2001 Bankr. LEXIS 438, 2001 WL 435378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-sadlier-rib-2001.