Monica J. Mathis

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
In re
MONICA J. MATHIS,
Debtor.
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 05-1386
(Chapter 7)
OPINION RE MOTION FOR CONTEMPT
On May 15, 2006, the debtor filed a motion to hold Coastal
Credit, LLC (“Coastal”) in contempt based upon its efforts to
repossess a motor vehicle in alleged violation of the discharge
order entered in this bankruptcy case (Docket Entry “DE” No. 25).
On May 25, 2006, Coastal filed a response, stating that it is
entitled to recover possession of the vehicle because it has a
purchase money security interest in the vehicle and its lien was
not avoided by the debtor (DE No. 31). 	On June 1, 2006, the
court entered an order to show cause, directing the debtor to
file a memorandum showing why contempt exists in this case given
Coastal’s representations, including any facts the debtor
disputes and any matters of law the debtor contests (DE No. 33).
The court warned that it would deny the debtor’s motion unless
The decision below is hereby signed. Dated: June
29, 2006.
_____________________________
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 05-01386 Doc 40 Filed 06/30/06 Entered 06/30/06 09:51:32 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 2

2	O:\Laura\Opinion - contempt motion - Mathis.wpd
she filed such a memorandum within 21 days after entry of the
show cause order.
On June 22, 2006, the debtor filed what purported to be a
response to the court’s show cause order (DE No. 39). 	In that
response, the debtor states that she has properly served the
motion and asks that her case not be dismissed for lack of proper
service. 	Although the court dismissed the debtor’s Motion for
Protective Order and Motion for Equitable Remedy for lack of
proper service, the court’s show cause order relating to the
debtor’s contempt motion did not address adequacy of service, and
instead went to the merits of the debtor’s motion and directed
the debtor to demonstrate why contempt exists in this case in
light of Coastal’s representations. 	The debtor’s response to the
court’s show cause order makes no attempt to explain why, given
the representations of Coastal, the debtor’s contempt motion
ought not be denied. 	In consideration of the debtor’s failure to
timely file a memorandum addressing why contempt exists in this
case, the court will deny the debtor’s Motion for Contempt.
An order follows.
[Signed and dated above.]
Copies to:
Debtor; Matthew A. Egeli; Chapter 7 trustee
Case 05-01386 Doc 40 Filed 06/30/06 Entered 06/30/06 09:51:32 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 2