.jpg)
Chapter 11: procedure for continuing the disclosure statement hearing
Alik:
Did you leave out some facts? In most cases Judge Neiter sets a date by which you have to file a Disclosure Statement (DS) and sometimes even confirm a plan.
Are you asking the judge for an extension of time to have a DS approved? Will the extension make it impossible to confirm by a court deadline?
Just guessing, Phyllis Jones is Judge Neiter's calendar clerk, and calendar clerks know intimately what the Judge wants. However there is a problem with the instructions. You cannot just lodge an order. You have to associate it with a motion to get it on LOU.
File an exparte motion to continue the DS hearing. If the court has given you a deadline, ask for the deadline to be extended in the exparte. Lodge the order and associate it with the motion.
The authority is section 102(1)(A). Bankruptcy cases are fraught with emergencies and 102(1)(A) lets you just slice right through the rules when necessary.
d
Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503 310-328-1001-voice
> On Oct 16, 2013, at 1:03 AM, Alik Segal wrote:
>
> Listmates,
>
> I needed to continue a hearing on the disclosure statement. I called Judge Neiter courtroom deputy Phyllis Jones for a hearing date for an ex parte motion, but she gave me a new disclosure statement hearing date and told me to lodge an order--the judge will consider it.
>
> This seems like an unusual procedure, because without a motion the judge will not know why the continuance is necessary, whether excusable neglect or other similar circumstances are involved. Also, other parties will not be able to express their views on the continuance.
>
>
> Is any one familiar with this procedure? Where in the local rules is it prescribed? In what circumstances is it employed by the judges in this district?
>
> --
> Alik Segal
> Alik.Segal@gmail.com
> 310-362-6157
> California Central District
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Why look a gift horse in the mouth?!
Sent from my iPad
> On Oct 16, 2013, at 1:03 AM, Alik Segal wrote:
>
> Listmates,
>
> I needed to continue a hearing on the disclosure statement. I called Judge Neiter courtroom deputy Phyllis Jones for a hearing date for an ex parte motion, but she gave me a new disclosure statement hearing date and told me to lodge an order--the judge will consider it.
>
> This seems like an unusual procedure, because without a motion the judge will not know why the continuance is necessary, whether excusable neglect or other similar circumstances are involved. Also, other parties will not be able to express their views on the continuance.
>
>
> Is any one familiar with this procedure? Where in the local rules is it prescribed? In what circumstances is it employed by the judges in this district?
>
> --
> Alik Segal
> Alik.Segal@gmail.com
> 310-362-6157
> California Central District
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Listmates,
I needed to continue a hearing on the disclosure statement. I called Judge
Neiter courtroom deputy Phyllis Jones for a hearing date for an ex parte
motion, but she gave me a new disclosure statement hearing date and told me
to lodge an order--the judge will consider it.
This seems like an unusual procedure, because without a motion the judge
will not know why the continuance is necessary, whether excusable neglect
or other similar circumstances are involved. Also, other parties will not
be able to express their views on the continuance.
Is any one familiar with this procedure? Where in the local rules is it
prescribed? In what circumstances is it employed by the judges in this
district?
Alik Segal
Alik.Segal@gmail.com
310-362-6157
California Central District
Listmates,I needed to continue a hearing on the disclosure statement. I called Judge Neiter courtroom deputy Phyllis Jones for a hearing date for an ex parte motion, but she gave me a new disclosure statement hearing date and told me to lodge an order--the judge will consider it.
This seems like an unusual procedure, because without a motion the judge will not know why the continuance is necessary, whether excusable neglect or other similar circumstances are involved. Also, other parties will not be able to express their views on the continuance.
Is any one familiar with this procedure?it employed by the judges in this district? -- Alik Segal
Alik.Segal@gmail.com310-362-6157California Central District
The post was migrated from Yahoo.