.jpg)
Motion for extension of time under FRBP 1007(c) and LBR 1007-1(e).
Wow, I've never had one denied and have filed lots of them. They are usually granted w/o question. Knowing you, you filed it on time? That is quite odd. Can you give me the case number, off list, so I can look at it?
D
Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503 310-328-1001-voice
> On Aug 6, 2014, at 2:38 PM, "jesseelaw@aol.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
>
> Does Judge Saltzman have any unwritten local local rules or a particular aversion to motions for extension of time to file schedules pursuant to FRBP 1007(c) and LBR 1007-1(e)? I have never been a big fan of filing motions for extension of time to file schedules and literally never filed one in 19 years of practice until last week. Two weeks earlier I filed an emergency Ch 7 petition to stop a foreclosure scheduled for the same day for self employed debtor. Plenty of unsecured debt too, so good reason to file. Client fighting serious medical issues for all of 2014, in and out of the hospital. Client hospitalized right after petition filed, then bedridden or back in hospital for outpatient treatment for the next week and half. Debtor not able to finish compilation of business records to complete schedules due to health so we requested 2 additional weeks in motion complying with FRBP 1007(c) and LBR 1007-1(e). Supporting declaration from client spelled everything out in detail, sans the specific details of medical condition, which are not appropriate for a publicly filed document. Today I received the Order denying the motion for extension of time. It did not contain any explanation. I thought these were pretty compelling facts so I am scratching my head at the moment.
>
> Mark Jessee
>
>
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.