CTB, INC., a PA Corp. et al v. Morris

1This Order sets forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law required by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7052. The
Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and §157(a). This is a core
proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(1) and (b)(2)(I).
2“The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present
newly discovered evidence.” Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). Parties should
not use a motion for reconsideration as an opportunity to relitigate issues the Court has already decided.
Smith v. City of Chester, 155 F.R.D. 95, 97 (E.D.Pa. 1994).
A summary of the facts in this matter is as follows. The Debtors’ bankruptcy case was originally
filed as a chapter 11 case. On December 3, 2003, the Plaintiffs filed an adversary proceeding asserting
various claims against the Debtors, including tortious interference of contract, conversion, trespass, civil
conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault and battery, and request for an injunction.
On June 2, 2004, the Debtors’ bankruptcy case was converted to Chapter 7. 	Pursuant to the “Notice of
Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Case, Meeting of Creditors, & Deadlines” dated June 10, 2004, the deadline for
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
___________________________________
In re: 	: 	CHAPTER 7
:
DAVID and ELAINE MORRIS, 	:
:
Debtors. 	: 	Bankruptcy No. 03-35650KJC
___________________________________
ORDER1
AND NOW, this 20 th day of May, 2005, upon the consideration of the Amended Motion
of Debtors To Reconsider Non-Dischargeability of Claim (the “Motion for Reconsideration”)
filed on January 5, 2005 (docket no. 146), and the memorandum in opposition to the Motion for
Reconsideration filed by CTB, Inc., CSL-Classic, Inc., Cindy Lee and Steve Choy (the
“Plaintiffs”) filed on January 27, 2005 (docket no. 70 filed in Adv. No. 03-1268);
AND, after a hearing to consider the Motion for Reconsideration held on February 16,
2005,
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that the Motion for
Reconsideration is DENIED. 2
Case 03-01268-kjc Doc 104 Filed 05/20/05 Entered 05/20/05 16:51:31 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 4

filing a complaint to determine dischargeability of certain debts was September 7, 2004. 	On August 13,
2004, the Plaintiffs filed a motion in the pending adversary proceeding seeking a “conditional finding” of
non-dischargeability of their claims against the Debtors (the “Non-Dischargeability Motion”). A hearing
on the Plaintiffs’ Non-Dischargeability Motion was held on October 13, 2004 and I determined that the
Non-Dischargeability Motion adequately stated the Plaintiffs’ request for a determination that their claims
should be excepted from discharge under Bankruptcy Code §523(a)(6) and, therefore, should be treated as
a motion to amend the complaint. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November
2, 2004, which served merely to incorporate into the complaint itself the §523(a)(6) claims already timely
and adequately asserted in the Non-Dischargeability Motion.
In their Motion for Reconsideration, the Debtors argue that the amended complaint should be
dismissed as untimely under Fed.R.Bankr.P. 4007(c), which requires a creditor to file a complaint to
determine the dischargeability of a debt no later than 60 days after the first date set for the meeting of
creditors under §341(a). A party may ask the court for an extension of time, but the request for an
extension must be filed before the 60-day time period has expired. The Plaintiffs’ amended complaint
was filed after the deadline. The Debtors argue that the Plaintiffs’ Non-Dischargeability Motion, filed
within the 60-day period, is not sufficient under the plain language of Fed.R.Bankr.P. 4007(c) because it
is neither a complaint nor a motion for an extension of time.
In support of the Motion for Reconsideration, the Debtors cite to cases in which the creditors
failed to file any pleading prior to the expiration of the 60-day deadline. See Peerless Ins. Co. v. Miller
(In re Miller), 228 B.R. 399 (6 th Cir. 1999), Judd v. Wolfe, 78 F.3d 110 (3d Cir. 1996), Jones v. Hill (In re
Hill), 811 F.2d 484 (9 th Cir. 1987). In this case, however, the Debtors’ objection is not to the timeliness
of the pleading, but to its form. 	“Consistent with the preference of federal courts to resolve claims on the
merits ... courts are loathe to deny a hearing or trial to a party due solely to the mis-styling of a pleading.”
In re Tomczak, No. 00-12096, 2000 WL 33728176, *2 (Bankr.E.D.Pa. July 19, 2000). In Tomczak, the
Court denied a debtor’s request to dismiss a motion to determine dischargeability of a debt due to the
form of the pleading, deciding that the motion met the pleading requirements of Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7008 and
that the debtor failed to demonstrate any prejudice arising from treatment of the motion as a complaint.
Id., at *3. Similarly, the Plaintiffs’ Non-dischargeability Motion meets the pleading requirements of
Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7008 by setting forth a “short and plain” statement as to why the Plaintiffs’ claims are
non-dischargeable and a demand for judgment finding that the claims are excepted from discharge under
§523. Moreover, I cannot discern any prejudice to the Debtors in allowing the Plaintiffs’ claims, as raised
in the Non-dischargeability Motion, to be pursued in this manner. For these reasons, the Debtors’ Motion
for Reconsideration is denied.
2
BY THE COURT:
KEVIN J. CAREY
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE
Case 03-01268-kjc Doc 104 Filed 05/20/05 Entered 05/20/05 16:51:31 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 4

3
Copies to:
David and Elaine Morris
190 West Ridge Pike
Limerick, PA 19468
Anthony A. Frigo, Esquire
1 West Main Street, Suite 230
Norristown, PA 19401
Young K. Park, Esquire
Raja Rajan, Esquire
Law Offices of Young K. Park
1700 Market Street, Suite 2631
Philadelphia, PA 19103
CTB, Inc.
275 Schuylkill Road
Phoenixville, PA 19460
CSL-Classic, Inc.
196 West Ridge Pike
Limerick, PA 19468
Cindy Lee
675 Peason Unit 513
Ees Plaines, IL 60016
Steve Choy
275 Schuylkill Road
Phoenixville, PA 19460
Christine C. Shubert, Trustee
10 Teaberry Drive
Medford, NJ 08055
Paul Brinton Maschmeyer, Esquire
Ciardi, Maschmeyer & Karalis, P.C.
1900 Spruce Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Frederic J. Baker, Sr., Esquire
Case 03-01268-kjc Doc 104 Filed 05/20/05 Entered 05/20/05 16:51:31 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 4

4
Senior Assistant United States Trustee
833 Chestnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Walter C. Stoertz, Jr., Acting Clerk, U. S. Bankruptcy Court
Pamela Blalock, Courtroom Deputy Clerk
Case 03-01268-kjc Doc 104 Filed 05/20/05 Entered 05/20/05 16:51:31 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 4