MacASKILL et al v. Ryan

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 06-01185 Doci3 Filed 05/15/06 Entered 05/15/06 11:47:57 Desc Main
Document Pageiof5

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
EASTERN DIVISION

IN RE:

JOHN T. RYAN, III, Chapter 7
Case No. 05-1733 1-WCH
Debtor.

IRENE MACASKILL, DONALD
MACASKILL, SHELLY MACASKILL,
AND SCOTT MACASKILL,

Plaintiffs,
VS. Adv. Pro. No. 06-1185

JOHN T. RYAN, UI,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

I. Introduction

The matter before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding (the “Motion
to Dismiss”) in which the defendant and Chapter 7 debtor John ‘I’. Ryan, LU (“Ryan”’) asks the
Court to dismiss the complaint of Irene MacAskill, Donald MacAskill, Shelly MacAskill and
Scott MacAskill (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) because they filed it afer the deadline for filing
objections to discharge. The Plaintiffs respond that the deadline for filing an objection to Ryan’s
discharge has not been established due to a discovery dispute. For the reasons stated below, I

will deny the Motion to Dismiss.

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 06-01185 Doci3 Filed 05/15/06 Entered 05/15/06 11:47:57 Desc Main
Document Page 2of5

II. Facts

In 1997, Ryan injured Irene MacAskill in a motor vehicle accident. Subsequently, Irene
MacAskill obtained a $282,164 judgment against Ryan, and Donald, Shelly, and Scott MacAskill
collectively obtained a $47,500 judgment against Ryan. According to the Plaintiffs, the
judgment amount currently exceeds $588,102.51, including interest. The Plaintiffs state that they
have been unable to collect the judgment.

Ryan filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition on August 16, 2005. On September 19, 2005,
the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Order Directing Debtor, John T. Ryan, II, to Appear for
Examination and Produce Documents. Ryan filed an opposition and the Plaintiffs filed their
Amended Motion for Order Directing Debtor, John T. Ryan, III, to Appear for Examination and
Produce Documents (the “Amended 2004 Exam Motion”) several days later, which Ryan again
opposed. In addition to requesting the presence of Ryan at a 2004 examination, the Amended
2004 Exam Motion also included a comprehensive document request and a request that Ryan
produce the documents to the offices of the Plaintiffs’ counsel at least seven days prior to the
date of the examination.

On September 23, 2005, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Extend Time to File
Adversarial Complaint (the “Motion to Extend Time”), in which they requested that the deadline
for filing complaints objecting to discharge be extended to “90 days a‘ter the examination of the
debtor pursuant to Rule 2004.” Ryan filed an opposition. On Octobe: 19, 2005, I held a hearing
on the Motion to Extend Time and the Amended 2004 Exam Motion. I overruled Ryan’s
objections and granted both of the Plaintiffs’ motions as submitted.

For several months thereafter, there were no entries on the docket. The parties agree that

Case 06-01185 Doci3 Filed 05/15/06 Entered 05/15/06 11:47:57 Desc Main
Document Page 3of5

the oral examination of Ryan was conducted on December 6, 2005. On March 7, 2006,
following a phone call from Ryan’s counsel inquiring into the deadline for filing objections to
discharge, I entered an Order requiring the Plaintiffs “to file with the Court a status report with
respect to the [Order granting the 2004 Exam Motion] in which they set forth the date(s) of when
they conducted and concluded the Rule 2004 examination of the Debtor.” The Plaintiffs then
filed a status report, to which Ryan responded. On March 17, 2006, the Plaintiffs filed their
Complaint, initiating the instant case. Ryan responded with the Motion to Dismiss, which the
Plaintiffs opposed in their Plaintiff’s Verified Opposition to Defendan:’s Motion to Dismiss
Adversary Proceeding (the “Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss”). I held a hearing on the
Motion to Dismiss and took the matter under advisement.
UL Analysis

Ryan did not include in his Motion to Dismiss the rule pursuant to which he seeks
dismissal. Because the Motion to Dismiss urges dismissal for failure to comply with the time
limit for filing objections to discharge, I will evaluate the Motion to Dismiss as one made
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. In evaluating the Motion to Dismiss, I must accept as true the facts
pleaded in the Complaint and make all reasonable inferences in the Plaintiffs’ favor. Cogan v.
Phoenix Life Ins. Co., 310 F.3d 238, 241 (1st Cir. 2002). If the Complaint presents any set of
facts that justify recovery then dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is inappropriate.
Cooperman vy. Individual, Inc., 171 F.3d 43, 46 (1st Cir. 1999). The burden is on the movant to
prove that the Complaint presents no claim upon which relief can be granted. Jnt’l Shipping

Agency, Inc. v. Union de Empleados de Muelles de Puerto Rico, 21 F.Supp.2d 100, 103 (D. P.R.

Case 06-01185 Doci3 Filed 05/15/06 Entered 05/15/06 11:47:57 Desc Main
Document Page4of5

1998).

The outcome of this contest depends upon my determination or when the 2004
examination of Ryan ended, triggering the start of the 90 day period after which the Plaintiffs
would be prohibited from filing objections to discharge. If the 2004 examination ended on or
before December 17, 2005,' then the Complaint is untimely and the Motion to Dismiss must be
granted. If the 2004 examination of Ryan ended after December 17, 2905, then the Complaint is
timely and the Motion to Dismiss must be denied. Specifically, the parties dispute whether the
2004 examination concluded at the end of the oral examination on December 6, 2005, or whether
it was continued based upon Ryan’s failure to produce the requested documents.

The Amended 2004 Exam Motion contains a request that Ryari deliver the requested
documents to the offices of Plaintiffs’ counsel at least seven days prior to the 2004 examination.
When I granted the Amended 2004 Exam Motion on October 19, 2005, that request gained the
force of an order of this Court.

Ryan and the Plaintiffs charge one another with causing various dclays in the production
of the documents requested in the Amended 2004 Exam Motion, but cne thing is clear: Ryan did
not deliver the documents to the office of Plaintiffs’ counsel at least seven days prior to the 2004
examination, and therefore failed to comply with an order of this Court. Whether and when Ryan
made the documents available for the Plaintiffs to copy at Ryan’s counsel’s office is irrelevant.
Ryan’s failure to deliver the requested documents to the Plaintiffs prior to the oral examination

made it impossible for them to conduct a thorough and fully informed examination, and therefore

‘December 17, 2005 falls ninety days before the date upon which the Plaintiffs filed the
Complaint.

Case 06-01185 Doci3 Filed 05/15/06 Entered 05/15/06 11:47:57 Desc Main
Document Page5of5

the 2004 examination did not end on December 6, 2005. Because Ryan did not deliver the
requested documents by December 17, 2005, the 2004 examination ca:anot have concluded on or
before that date. Therefore, the 90 day period after which objections to discharge are barred did
not begin on or before December 17, 2005, the Complaint is timely, arid the Motion to Dismiss
must be denied.

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, Ryan’s Motion to Dismiss is denied.

Mille

illiam C. Hilf{man
United States Bar kruptcy Judge

cass IMT b