Ivan Russell Lee

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
In re
IVAN RUSSELL LEE,
Debtor.
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 09-00406
(Chapter 13)
Not for publication in
West’s Bankruptcy Reporter
MEMORANDUM DECISION RE MOTION TO REOPEN CASE
The debtor has filed a motion to vacate the order that
dismissed this case without prejudice, calling the motion a
motion to reopen the case. 	The motion will be denied for the
following reasons.
The debtor commenced this case on May 12, 2009. 	The debtor
was required to file his schedules, his statement of financial
affairs, and certain other papers within 15 days after the
commencement of the case. 	He filed a motion for extension of the
time and was granted until June 9, 2009 to file the required
papers. 	When he appeared for an examination at the meeting of
creditors on June 20, 2009, he still had not filed the required
documents, thus frustrating the conduct of the meeting.
Failure of a debtor timely to file required documents
The document below is hereby signed.
Signed: August 24, 2009.
_____________________________
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 09-00406 Doc 74 Filed 08/25/09 Entered 08/25/09 14:28:37 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 4

2
constitutes a ground for dismissal of the case, although it does
not always require dismissal. 	But 11 U.S.C. § 521(i) makes
dismissal on the ground mandatory, in certain circumstances.
Unless one of certain exceptions applied, the debtor was required
under § 521(i) to file the required documents no later than the
45th day after the commencement of the case in order to avoid the
automatic dismissal provisions of § 521(i). 	The 45th day after
the commencement of the case on May 12, 2009, was June 26, 2009.
The debtor failed to file a motion on or before June 26, 2009 to
extend the 45-day deadline, and accordingly the exception in §
521(i)(3) (permitting the debtor to request an extension before
the 45-day deadline expires) did not apply. 	The debtor filed a
motion on June 27, 2009 for a further extension of time to file
the required papers, but that motion was not made within 45 days
after the date of the filing of the petition, and accordingly,
the court was not free to grant the debtor an enlargement of the
45-day deadline pursuant to that motion. 	(In any event, the
motion only requested an extension until July 9, 2009, and the
required documents were not filed by July 9, 2009.) 	No other
exceptions to the automatic dismissal provision were applicable.
The chapter 13 trustee filed a motion to dismiss the case
with prejudice on June 24, 2009, pointing out that the debtor had
not complied with the court’s order to file required documents by
June 9, 2009, and noting that under § 521(i) dismissal was
Case 09-00406 Doc 74 Filed 08/25/09 Entered 08/25/09 14:28:37 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 4

3
mandatory (or, she should have more accurately stated, would be
mandatory three days later on June 27, 2009, the 46th day after
the commencement of the case).
Despite the motion to dismiss and an impending hearing on
that motion set for July 17, 2009, the debtor still failed to
file the required documents. 	The debtor failed to appear at the
hearing on the motion to dismiss which was held on July 17, 2009,
and by an order entered on July 20, 2009, the court dismissed the
case on the basis that § 521(i) required dismissal, but the court
declined to dismiss the case with prejudice.
On August 8, 2009, twenty-two days after the court entered
the dismissal order, the debtor filed his motion to “reopen” the
case. 	Only on August 8, 2009, did the debtor also finally file
his schedules and statement of financial affairs, 57 days after
the commencement of the case.
The debtor’s failure to file required documents by the
court-ordered extension date of June 9, 2009, and to have still
failed to file the documents by the July 17, 2009, hearing on the
motion to dismiss constituted cause to dismiss the case, and the
debtor’s failure to appear at the hearing on the motion to
dismiss and to articulate grounds why the court should not
dismiss the case based on that failure, fully justified the
court’s order of dismissal. 	Nothing in the debtor’s motion to
“reopen” sets forth adequate grounds to set aside a dismissal
Case 09-00406 Doc 74 Filed 08/25/09 Entered 08/25/09 14:28:37 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 4

4	C:\Documents and Settings\teel\My Documents\Lee (Ivan Russell) Mem Decsn re Mtn to Reopen.wpd
which was fully justified. 	Bankruptcy relief is not available
to those who file required documents only once they get around to
it and who disregard court-imposed deadlines and fail to appear
at hearings to address dismissal based on such disregard.
In any event, § 521(i) made dismissal mandatory. 	The debtor
is simply mistaken in contending that his June 27, 2009, motion
was sufficiently timely to qualify as a timely motion under §
521(i)(3). 	Even if that contention were correct, the debtor has
not offered any justification for waiting 22 days after entry of
the order of dismissal to raise that contention, and such a delay
is destructive of the orderly processing of this bankruptcy case.
An order follows denying the motion to “reopen.”
[Signed and dated above.]
Copies to:
Debtor; debtor's attorney; trustee.
Case 09-00406 Doc 74 Filed 08/25/09 Entered 08/25/09 14:28:37 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 4