Minon Miller

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES DIVISION
In re
MINON MILLER,
Debtor.
Case No. 2:13-bk-35116-RK
Chapter 7
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO AMEND MOTION TO DISMISS WITH
NONDISCHARGEABILITY COMPLAINT
AND FOR “RELATION BACK”; OR, IN
THE ALTERNATIVE, TO AMEND BASIS
OF MOTION TO DISMISS
Hearing Date: April 22, 2014
Time: 2:30 p.m.
Courtroom: 1675
On March 24, 2014, Edward Gilliam (“Creditor”) filed a Motion for Leave to Amend
Motion to Dismiss with Nondischargeability Complaint and for “Relation Back”; or, in the
Alternative, to Amend Basis of Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 51) (the “Motion”).
Creditor’s Motion came on for hearing at the above-captioned date and time.
Appearances were as noted on the record.
The court hereby denies Creditor’s motion for leave to amend motion to dismiss
with nondischargeability complaint and for relation back because the original motion to
dismiss does not put the debtor on notice of the nature of the claim in the proposed
FILED & ENTERED
APR 24 2014
CLERK U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT
Central District of California
BY DEPUTY CLERK	gae
Case 2:13-bk-35116-RK Doc 63 Filed 04/24/14 Entered 04/24/14 13:03:09 Desc
Main Document Page 1 of 2

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
complaint to determine debt dischargeability and the debt nondischargeability relief
sought in the complaint. The original motion to dismiss sought dismissal of the
bankruptcy case and relief from the automatic stay, but did not seek determination of
dischargeability of debt or denial of discharge. Thus, this situation is more like In re
Marino, 37 F.3d 1354 (9th Cir. 1994) and In re Markus, 313 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2002)
than like In re Dominguez, 51 F.3d 1502 (9th Cir. 1995).
The court hereby also denies Creditor’s motion to amend basis of motion to
dismiss as unnecessary because Creditor may seek to dismiss the bankruptcy case for
bad faith filing under 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(3) because that section was amended in 2005 to
permit a bankruptcy court to dismiss for bad faith under 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(3)(A) as
recognized by the court in In re Mitchell, 357 B.R. 142 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2006). Since
Creditor may properly seek relief for dismissal of the case for bad faith under that
provision, there is no need to amend the motion to assert relief under 11 U.S.C. § 707(a).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Creditor’s Motion is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
###
Date: April 24, 2014
Case 2:13-bk-35116-RK Doc 63 Filed 04/24/14 Entered 04/24/14 13:03:09 Desc
Main Document Page 2 of 2