Alexander v. Nurrauddin

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
In re
BASHMA W. NURRAUDDIN,
Debtor.
___________________________
LISA ALEXANDER,
Plaintiff,
v.
BASHMA W. NURRAUDDIN,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 03-02204
(Chapter 7)
Adversary Proceeding No.
04-10030
OPINION RE DISMISSING ADVERSARY PROCEEDING
The plaintiff, Lisa Alexander, failed to file a pretrial
statement and failed to appear at the scheduled pretrial
conference. This led to an order to show cause why the
adversary proceeding ought not be dismissed.
To put the matter in context, this adversary proceeding
involved the following facts. Alexander was the landlord of
the debtor-defendant, Bashma W. Nurrauddin. Alexander's
The decision below is signed as a decision of
the court.
Signed: July 10, 2005.
_____________________________
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 04-10030 Doc 17 Filed 07/11/05 Entered 07/11/05 16:19:27 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 6

2
complaint refers to Nurrauddin having applied to rent from
Alexander using a Social Security Number different than the
Social Security Number used by Nurrauddin in filing her
bankruptcy petition. Alexander's complaint also refers to
Nurrauddin's destruction of her property. These allegations
came close to alleging a debt procured by fraud,
nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), and a debt
for willful and malicious injury to property, nondischargeable
under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). The court says that the
allegations came close because the complaint failed to allege
that the Social Security Number was used with an intent to
defraud Alexander and that the use actually caused Alexander
to advance credit (in the form of a lease) as required by §
523(a)(2)(A), and failed to allege that the destruction arose
not from negligence or recklessness but from willful and
malicious destruction of the property.
The court accordingly set the matter down for a pretrial
conference and issued a detailed scheduling order directing
the parties as to what had to be included in their pretrial
statements. Neither party filed a pretrial statement. At the
pretrial conference itself, only Nurrauddin appeared (through
counsel). The court accordingly issued its order to show
cause why the proceeding ought not be dismissed, and setting a
Case 04-10030 Doc 17 Filed 07/11/05 Entered 07/11/05 16:19:27 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 6

3
deadline of October 22, 2004 for a response.
Alexander’s unsigned response was filed late on October
23, 2004, without a motion for enlargement of the time to
respond. The response further includes no certificate of
service showing service on counsel for Nurrauddin. In her
response, Alexander apologizes for failing to appear at the
pretrial conference, but without explanation. She states that
she “has every desire to move forward with this proceeding
however, financial funding for legal representation is not
available at this time.” However, she has failed to file a
pretrial statement and a schedule of witnesses and exhibits.
She refers to documentation she has already supplied as part
of her complaint, and then states “[i]f the court could
provide specific instructions in terms of what other
documentation needs to be provided, the plaintiff will readily
do so.”
The court's scheduling order was already explicit
regarding what was required to be included in a pretrial
statement, including listing witnesses and exhibits. The
court's order to show cause referred to the inability of
Alexander to prove her case if she listed no witnesses or
exhibits. Yet, Alexander has failed to comply with the simple
task of preparing a pretrial statement, including filing as
Case 04-10030 Doc 17 Filed 07/11/05 Entered 07/11/05 16:19:27 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 6

4
part of that pretrial statement a list of witnesses and
exhibits.
Although the court is required to treat pro se litigants
with some liberality, the court is also obligated to treat the
opposing party fairly, and to play a disinterested role.
Furthermore, the court has an obligation to construe the
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure to “secure the just,
speedy, and inexpensive determination of every case and
proceeding.” F.R. Bankr. P. 1001.
The court concludes that it ought to dismiss this
proceeding. Alexander has given no excuse for not appearing
at the pretrial conference. Placing this proceeding back on
track will entail considerable delay, especially because
Alexander is proceeding without counsel; time would be
required of the court in assisting Alexander (if that were
appropriate) in complying with her pretrial requirements and
her obligations at trial. The court’s scheduling order
already clearly enunciated what each party’s pretrial
statement was to include. Moreover, Narrauddin would likely
be subjected to additional unwarranted expense in dealing with
an opponent whose missteps have already required one
appearance of counsel at a pretrial conference unattended by
Alexander. Finally, it is not at all clear that facts exist
Case 04-10030 Doc 17 Filed 07/11/05 Entered 07/11/05 16:19:27 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 6

5
that would permit Alexander to establish a valid
nondischargeability claim under either § 523(a)(2)(A) or §
523(a)(6): she has yet to allege that she relied on the
erroneous Social Security Number, or that the destruction of
furniture was willful and malicious (as opposed to negligent).
Case 04-10030 Doc 17 Filed 07/11/05 Entered 07/11/05 16:19:27 Desc Main
Document Page 5 of 6

6	O:\JUDGTEMP\Alexander vs Nurrauddin (In re Nurrauddin) Decsn re Dsmssl.wpd
Accordingly, the court is signing a judgment dismissing
this proceeding.
[Signed above.]
Copies to: All counsel of record.
Case 04-10030 Doc 17 Filed 07/11/05 Entered 07/11/05 16:19:27 Desc Main
Document Page 6 of 6