Jacqueline L Sutton

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
In re
JACQUELINE L. SUTTON,
Debtor.
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 07-00020
(Chapter 7)
DECISION RE DEBTOR’S MOTION TO EXTEND THE AUTOMATIC STAY
The debtor has filed a motion to extend the automatic stay
(Docket Entry “DE” No. 25, filed February 6, 2007). 	The court
will deny the debtor’s motion for the following reasons.
The debtor filed a previous case under Chapter 7 of the
Bankruptcy Code on November 10, 2006 (Case No. 06-00419), which
case was dismissed on December 15, 2006, due to the debtor’s
failure to comply with the pre-petition credit counseling
requirement of 11 U.S.C. § 109(h). 	Because the previously
dismissed case was pending in this court within the 1-year period
preceding the filing of the petition in this case, pursuant to §
362(c)(3)(A), the stay under § 362(a) in this case was scheduled
to terminate on the 30th day after the filing of the petition.
The decision below is hereby signed. Dated:
February 9, 2007.
_____________________________
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 07-00020 Doc 26 Filed 02/12/07 Entered 02/12/07 14:28:51 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 3

2
Section 362(c)(3)(B), however, permits the court to continue the
automatic stay “after notice and a hearing completed before the
expiration of the 30-day period . . . .” 	Here, that 30-day
period expired on February 7, 2007, one day after the debtor
filed her motion.
The term “after notice and a hearing” is defined in 11
U.S.C. § 102(1)(A) as meaning “after such notice as is
appropriate in the particular circumstances, and such opportunity
for a hearing as is appropriate in the particular circumstances.”
The debtor in this case filed her motion on February 6, 2007,
with no notice under LBR 9013-1 of an opportunity to oppose the
motion, which is the ordinary means by which a movant satisfies
the “after notice and a hearing” requirement. 	Furthermore, the
motion was not filed until February 6, 2007. 	Consequently, the
court did not learn of the motion until February 7, 2007, too
late for the court to schedule an actual hearing by February 7,
2007, on notice to all creditors, so that the “after notice and a
hearing” requirement could be satisfied by an actual hearing.
The statute being unambiguous, and the debtor having failed
to satisfy the notice and a hearing requirement of 11 U.S.C. §
362(c)(3)(B), the court has no choice but to deny the debtor’s
motion. 	This decision does not, however, address whether the
debtor could file an adversary proceeding and obtain affirmative
injunctive relief as opposed to an extension of the automatic
Case 07-00020 Doc 26 Filed 02/12/07 Entered 02/12/07 14:28:51 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 3

3	O:\Laura\Autuomatic Stay\Decision - Motion to Extend Stay - Sutton.wpd
stay.
An order follows denying the debtor’s motion.
[signed and dated above.]
Copies to:
Debtor; Debtor’s Counsel; Chapter 7 Trustee;
All entities on the BNC mailing list
Case 07-00020 Doc 26 Filed 02/12/07 Entered 02/12/07 14:28:51 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 3