US Trustee - Greenbelt, 11 v. Mayo

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
at GREENBELT
In Re: 	*
* 	Case No. 	05-90692-TJC	Rose M. Mayo,
* 	Chapter 	7
Debtor. 	*
************************************* 	*
*
*
W. Clarkson McDow, Jr., U.S. Trustee,
*
Plaintiff, 	*
vs. 	* Adv Proc. 	06-01722
*
*
Rose M. Mayo,
*
Defendant. 	*
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION IN SUPPORT OF
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”),
filed by W. Clarkson McDow, Jr., United States Trustee for Region Four (the
“Plaintiff”). Docket No. 6. No response has been filed to the Motion. In the Motion the
Signed: January 12, 2007
SO ORDERED
Entered: January 16, 2007 Case 06-01722 Doc 9 Filed 01/16/07 Page 1 of 4

2
Plaintiff seeks an order on his Amended Complaint Objecting to Discharge (the
“Complaint”) denying a discharge to Defendant, Rose M. Mayo (the “Defendant”)
pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(8). For the reasons stated herein, the Motion will be
granted.
The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334, 157(a),
and Local Rule 402 of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. This
is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).
APPLICABLE STANDARDS
Summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 is appropriate where there is no
genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. One of the principal purposes of summary judgment is to isolate and dispose of all
factually unsupported claims or defenses. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
To that end, the court considers all evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving
party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986) (all justifiable
inferences are drawn in the non-movant’s favor). The mere existence of an alleged
factual dispute does not defeat a motion for summary judgment; rather the standard
requires that there be no genuine issue of material fact. Id at 247-48 (emphasis added).
Only disputes over the facts that might affect the outcome of the lawsuit under applicable
law will preclude entry of summary judgment. Id. Therefore, once a motion for
summary judgment is made and supported as provided in the Rule, the non-moving party
must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(e). The non-movant may rely on any evidentiary materials listed in Rule 56(c), except
the motions themselves. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325. If reasonable minds could differ as to
Case 06-01722 Doc 9 Filed 01/16/07 Page 2 of 4

3
the import of the evidence, summary judgment should not be granted. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. at 248.
There are no material disputes of fact in the instant case. Although the Defendant
filed a responsive pleading to the Complaint (Docket No. 5), that response fails to deny
any of the allegations set forth in the Complaint as required by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7008.
Moreover, the core facts upon which the Motion is based are matters of docket record in
this bankruptcy case and a prior bankruptcy case filed by the Defendant, as described
further below.
MATERIAL FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE
On December 27, 2005, the Defendant filed a voluntary petition for relief under
Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code initiating case No. 05-90692-TJC. Complaint at ¶ 5.
On June 30, 2006, the case was converted to one under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy
Code. Complaint at ¶ 6.
The Defendant previously filed a petition for relief under Chapter 7 of the
Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland on
November 13, 2000, in the case of Rose Marie Mayo, Case No. 00-22042-PM.
Complaint at ¶ 7. 	The Defendant received a Chapter 7 discharge in Case No. 00-22042-
PM on February 21, 2001. 	Complaint at ¶ 8.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Pursuant to Section 727(a))of the Bankruptcy Code, the Court shall grant the
Debtor a discharge unless:---
(8) the debtor has been granted a discharge under this
section, or section 1141 of this title, or under section 14,
371, or 476 of the Bankruptcy Act [former 11 U.S.C. §§ 32,
Case 06-01722 Doc 9 Filed 01/16/07 Page 3 of 4

4
771, 876], in a case commenced within 8 years before the
date of the filing of the petition.
11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(8). The undisputed facts in this case entitle the Plaintiff for judgment
as a matter of law under Section 727(a)(8).
The Defendant commenced Case No. 00-22042-PM in this Court on November
13, 2000. On February 21, 2001, the Defendant received a Chapter 7 discharge in that
case. The Defendant’s current bankruptcy case was commenced on December 27, 2005,
less than 8 years following the commencement of Case No. 00-22042-PM.
Consequently, under the express language of Section 727(a)(8) of the Bankruptcy
Code, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the Complaint.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Motion will be granted and the Defendant will
be denied a discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(8). An appropriate order will be
entered.
Copies To:
Plaintiff- Pro Se
Defendant
Defendant’s Attorney
Trustee
U.S. Trustee
Case 06-01722 Doc 9 Filed 01/16/07 Page 4 of 4