Jansen et al v. Burt

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re
JAMES DAVID GEORGE BURT, No. 05-11568
Debtor(s).
______________________________________/
TERRY JANSEN, et al.,
Plaintiff(s),
v. A.P. No. 05-1113
JAMES DAVID GEORGE BURT,
Defendant(s).
_______________________________________/
Memorandum on Motion to Dismiss
_________________
In dischargeability actions governed by FRBP 4007(c), even compelling equitable factors cannot
excuse a late complaint. In re Hill, 811 F.2d 484, 487 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiffs’ reliance on Kontrick
v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 157 L.Ed. 2d 867 (2004), is misplaced, since that case only held that the issue of
timeliness cannot be raised for the first time after the case has been decided on the merits. In this case,
an affirmative defense of untimeliness was pleaded in the answer and the motion to dismiss was brought
before the case was heard on the merits.
Entered on Docket
February 21, 2006
GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK
U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case: 05-01113 Doc# 9 Filed: 02/21/06 Entered: 02/21/06 13:13:08 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion to dismiss will be granted. Counsel for the debtor
shall submit an appropriate form of order.
Dated: February 21, 2006
SAlan Jaroslovsky
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
Case: 05-01113 Doc# 9 Filed: 02/21/06 Entered: 02/21/06 13:13:08 Page 2 of 2