Morner v. Hyatt

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
In re: 	BERNICE H YATT ,
Debtor
Case No. 	05-38709
Adv. No. 	05-3510
PROVY M ORNER,
Plaintiff
v.
BERNICE H YATT ,
Defendant
Judge Waldron
Chapter 7
DECISION ON ORDER DENYING
MOTION FOR INVOLUNTARY
DISMISSAL OF ADVERSARY
PROCEEDING
DATED AT DAYTON, OHIO this 17th Day of May, 2006:
On March 28, 2006, the Court entered an Order: 	Entering 	Determinations
Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. § 157 and 28 U.S.C. § 1334, Fixing Date For Filing Amended
Complaint And Discovery Cut-Off Date, And Setting Further Pretrial Conference By
Telephone (Doc. 10). This order provided in part:
This document has been electronically entered in the records of the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 17, 2006
____________________________________________________________
Case 3:05-ap-03510 Doc 23 Filed 05/17/06 Entered 05/17/06 15:36:33 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 2

Counsel for the plaintiff shall, not later than April 20, 2006, file an
amended complaint clarifying the specific causes of action upon
which 	the 	Plaintiff 	seeks 	relief. 	Attention 	should 	be 	given 	to
eliminating Code sections which appear to have no relevance to the
issues presented. Additionally, the amended complaint shall contain
a typed copy of the exact language which appears on Exhibit A as a
part of the initial complaint. (emphasis in original)
Although the Plaintiff has filed a number of documents, and thereafter withdrew a
number of documents, the present record contains the Plaintiffs Amended Complaint To
Determine Dischargeability Of Debts (Fraud/Larceny) (Doc. 12) and Plaintiff’s Response
To Defendant’s Motion For Involuntary Dismissal (Doc. 19). These multiple filings were
in response to the Court’s prior Order (Doc. 10) and the Defendant’s subsequent Motion
For Involuntary Dismissal Of Adversary Proceeding (Doc. 13).
Although the Defendant is, in almost all particulars, correct in the assertions
listed in the Motion For Involuntary Dismissal Of Adversary Proceeding (Doc. 13), the
Court’s review of the Plaintiff’s filings persuades the Court that the Plaintiff has complied
with the substance of the Court’s prior Order (Doc. 10) and no apparent prejudice to the
Defendant has been demonstrated.
Perhaps, 	more 	significantly, 	the 	Sixth 	Circuit 	has 	repeatedly 	expressed 	its
preference that, absent circumstances not present in this proceeding, disputes be
resolved on their merits.
To the extent that the Defendant wishes to pursue claims of genuine prejudice,
and the Court suggests mere delay seldom, if ever, rises to level of genuine prejudice,
the Court will consider promptly filed motions at the time of the pretrial conference to be
held on June 21, 2006 at 2:00 p.m.
An 	order 	in 	accordance 	with 	this 	decision 	is 	simultaneous 	entered 	in 	this
adversary proceeding.
SO ORDERED.
c:
Gary A. McGee, Esq., 332 South Front Street, Hamilton, Ohio 45011 (Atty. for the
Plaintiff)
Scott A. Kramer, Esq., 130 West Second Street, Suite 924, Dayton, Ohio 45402 (Atty.
for the Defendant)
###
Case 3:05-ap-03510 Doc 23 Filed 05/17/06 Entered 05/17/06 15:36:33 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 2