Cao v. Garner (In re Garner)
| Decision Date | 18 June 2015 |
| Docket Number | ADVERSARY CASE NO. 15-4019,CASE NO. 13-44563-DML |
| Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Texas |
| Parties | IN RE: TONYA G. GARNER, DEBTOR. YUFENG CAO, PLAINTIFF, v. TONYA G. GARNER, DEFENDANT. |
Before the court is the Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), or in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss Due to Time Bar (the "Motion") filed by Tonya G. Garner (the "Defendant")on April 16, 2015.1 Yufeng Cao ("Plaintiff") filed his Objection to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Family Code Title 2 and Pursuant to the Rule of Timely Filing (the "Response") on May 11, 2015.2 The court held a hearing on the Motion on May 14, 2015 (the "Hearing") and took the Motion under advisement.
For the reasons stated below, the court grants the Motion. The court exercises core jurisdiction over the Motion pursuant to the United States Code, title 28, sections 1334 and 157(b)(2)(I). This memorandum opinion constitutes the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. FED. R. BANKR. P. 7052.
Plaintiff initiated the Adversary by filing his Objection to the Discharge of a Particular Debt (the "Complaint")3 on March 16, 2015. The parties have pleaded the following undisputed facts.
Defendant filed a petition under chapter thirteen of the Code4 in this court on October 1, 2013.5 On September 27, 2014, Defendant's son, along with two other children from another family in the Defendant's neighborhood, threw rocks at Plaintiff's van, thereby breaking a window on the van.6 On September 27, 2014, Defendant's son was at least ten years of age but undereighteen years of age.7 The total cost for repairing the damage to the van was $1,153.89.8 Plaintiff reached a settlement with the children's two families to split the repair costs, leaving Defendant responsible for $576.95 in repair fees (the "Repair Damages").9 Defendant never paid her portion of the damages, so Plaintiff brought suit in the Justice Court, Precinct 2, Place 1, Johnson County, Texas on November 4, 2014.10 Plaintiff there sought relief in the form of the Repair Damages, as well as $30 in repair-related travel expenses and $126.00 in court fees (the "Small Claims Damages").11
Defendant voluntarily converted the Bankruptcy to a proceeding under chapter seven of the Code on November 24, 2014.12 On January 5, 2015, Defendant updated her schedules to include Plaintiff's claim, listing it as contingent and unliquidated.13 On January 8, 2015, Defendant filed a certificate of service indicating that she had provided notice of the Bankruptcy and first meeting of creditors to Plaintiff.14 The trustee assigned to the Bankruptcy (the "Trustee") held a first meeting of creditors pursuant to Code section 341 on January 12, 2015.15
The court issued an order (the "Deadline Order") that set the deadline for challenges to dischargeability of debts for sixty days later, on March 13, 2015.16 More particularly, the Deadline Order was accompanied by its Notice of Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Case, Meeting of Creditors, &Deadlines (the "Deadline Notice").17 In a subsection labeled "Deadlines," the Deadline Notice states that "Papers must be received by the bankruptcy clerk's office by the following deadlines: Deadline to Object to Debtor's Discharge or to Challenge Dischargeability of Certain Debts: 3/13/15."18
Representing himself, Plaintiff mailed the Complaint via certified first class mail on March 5, 2015. Plaintiff made inquiries at the post office and received assurances that mail of this class from Plaintiff's post office to the destination zip code would normally arrive in two to three days, well within the March 13 deadline to object to discharge. However, the United States Postal Service unexpectedly delayed delivery for ten days and the Complaint finally arrived at the courthouse on March 16, 2015, three days after the deadline to object to discharge, at which time it was promptly filed in the Adversary docket.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff requested the court determine his claim to be excepted from discharge under Code section 523(a)(6). Plaintiff seeks $1,112.95, composed of the Small Claims Damages, court costs for filing the Adversary, and other expenses (the "Adversary Damages").19 In the Response, Plaintiff elaborated on the basis for his request for relief, arguing that Texas Family Code Section 41.001 assigns liability to Defendant for her child's actions.20
By the Motion, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's claim was not filed timely before the deadline to file complaints to determine dischargeability of debts and that it should therefore be dismissed.
The Motion and the Response raise two issues. First, whether the date a party mails a document via the United States Postal Service is the date on which the document should be deemed to be filed. Second, whether bankruptcy law provides for the requested relief.
The Motion requests the court dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.21 The moving party has the burden of showing that no relief may be granted on the claim as stated.22 A motion to dismiss may be granted because a legal remedy based on the alleged facts does not exist or because the facts as alleged, even if true, do not satisfy the legal requirement of the pleaded cause of action.23
Time limits established in Rule 4007 do not implicate subject matter jurisdiction.24 Rather, the time limits in the Bankruptcy Rules are intended for the debtor to use as affirmative defenses.25 A motion to dismiss under Rule 7012 is a proper mechanism to assert that a complaint to determine dischargeability is time-barred.26
"It is well-settled that where a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is supported by materials outside the pleadings, the Court may, in its complete discretion, accept the materials and convert the motion into a motion for summary judgment under Rule [7056], or reject or ignore thematerials."27 As there are no disputed issues of fact in this case, the court finds that the Hearing afforded ample opportunity to both parties to present evidence, most pertinently as to the circumstances of the mailing of the Complaint. To the extent necessary, the court will treat the Motion as a motion for summary judgment on stipulated facts.28
Dismissal for failure to state a claim "is viewed with disfavor and is rarely granted."29 The court takes all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construes liberally in favor of the plaintiff.30 The court evaluates pleadings drafted by pro se litigants using less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.31
The "Mailbox Rule" is a generic term that describes various rules concerning the date and time that a legal document becomes effective or is considered to be filed with the court when the document is placed in the mail for delivery. At common law, courts developed detailed rules for determining when contractual acceptance was effective if mailed.32 In general, an acceptance of an offer was effective and formed the mutual assent necessary to form a contract at the moment a party placed the acceptance in the mail.33
Many government agencies, legislatures and courts have codified these common law doctrines, applying them to court filings.34 These rules provide that court filings are deemed timely if they are placed in the mail on or before the deadline to file, even if the court receives them after the deadline to file has passed.35 These mailbox rules are particularly well-developed in the special context of prisoners' pro se criminal court filings and their delivery through prison mailing systems.36 The Supreme Court has noted, however, that individuals outside of have a variety of options to ensure timely delivery of their court documents, even when using the mail.37
Bankruptcy courts operate under the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, which adopt the rules contained in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure pertaining both to service and tofiling.38 Compare FED. R. CIV. P. 5(b)(2)(C) () with FED. R. CIV. P. 5(d)(2) (). These rules demonstrate that the distinction between service of a document and filing of a document for mailbox rule purposes is important. In this case, it is the filing, and not the service, of the Complaint that is at issue.39 While the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and thus, the Bankruptcy Rules, contain a mailbox rule for service, no such mailbox rule is explicitly stated regarding filings. See FED. R. CIV. P. 5.
The time at which the Complaint is determined to have been filed, whether upon mailing or upon receipt by the court, is dispositive in this case. The question is, therefore, can the word "delivering" in the rule language "[a] paper is filed by delivering it to the clerk..."40 be construed as Plaintiff argues, by delivering the Complaint to the United States Postal Service for subsequent delivery to the court, or must the court's clerk have the Complaint actually in its possession by the deadline?
The Fifth Circuit has long held that Lee v. Dallas Cty. Bd. Of Ed., 578 F.2d 1177, 1178 n. 1 (5th Cir. 1978).41 Even if a party deposits a filing with the postal servicefor delivery prior to the deadline, if the clerk does not receive the filing before the deadline passes, the filing is not timely and dismissal is appropriate.42
The court therefore finds that the Complaint was not filed timely.
The time limit to file complaints to determine dischargeability...
To continue reading
Request your trial