Shawn Dolgin

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
27
28
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re 	) Bankruptcy Case
) No. 11-31091DM
SHAWN DOLGIN, 	)
)
Debtor. 	) Chapter 13
___________________________________)
MEMORANDUM DECISION ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On July 8, 2011, I entered an order dismissing this Chapter
13 case for the reasons set forth in a Memorandum Decision On
Motion To Dismiss (“Memorandum”) filed the same date.
Debtor filed a motion for reconsideration and the matter came
on for hearing on September 16, 2011. 	Appearances were noted in
the record.
Debtor challenged the sufficiency of service of the original
motion to dismiss and also argued, inter alia, that I failed to
consider a June 6, 2001 amended Chapter 13 plan that substantially
increased payments to creditors over time.
In the Memorandum I did not address the sufficiency of
service. 	Instead I looked at the totality of circumstances,
including the original plan’s modest payment of $100 per month. 	I
overlooked increased payments of $250 for twelve months and $565
for forty-five months.
Had I been mindful of the June 6th amended plan and its
-1-
Signed and Filed: September 21, 2011
________________________________________
DENNIS MONTALI
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
________________________________________
Entered on Docket
September 22, 2011
GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK
U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case: 11-31091 Doc# 51 Filed: 09/21/11 Entered: 09/22/11 15:21:16 Page 1 of 3

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
27
28
increased payments, I would have taken them into account. 	That
would have weighed the totality of the circumstances in the
debtor’s favor.
Following the hearing on September 16, I listened to a
transcript of the June 15th hearing on the original motion in
order to determine whether counsel for debtor had called to my
attention the filing of the amended plan with the increased
payments nine days prior to the hearing. 	I now realize that I
failed to take into account those increased payments and, even
worse, I failed to give counsel for the debtor an opportunity to
mention those payments.
In fact, I originally did not expect to be present on June
15, but personal circumstances changed and the calendar went
forward on that day. 	As the record reflects, I did not have time
to read the papers and took the matter under advisement on the
assumption that the motion could be granted or denied without the
need for an evidentiary hearing. 	In the last moments of the brief
hearing counsel for the moving parties alluded to the amended
plan, commenting that it discriminated against his clients, David
Peter and Kathleen Miller. 	When counsel for debtor asked to
respond to the criticism of the amended plan, I cut her off and
took the matter under advisement. 	My final comment of substance
to both parties was that the closing arguments of counsel would be
dispositive; rather the record on file would.
Regrettably, since I overlooked the amended plan and did not
give counsel an opportunity to explain it, these circumstances
lead me to conclude that dismissal was improper. 	Accordingly, the
motion for reconsideration will be GRANTED.
-2-
Case: 11-31091 Doc# 51 Filed: 09/21/11 Entered: 09/22/11 15:21:16 Page 2 of 3

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
27
28
In granting the motion and reinstating the Chapter 13 case, I
do not need to reach the issue of whether the original motion was
properly served on the debtor.
I am concurrently issuing an order reinstating the case.
**END OF MEMORANDUM DECISION**
-3-
Case: 11-31091 Doc# 51 Filed: 09/21/11 Entered: 09/22/11 15:21:16 Page 3 of 3