Mizrach ex rel. Estate of Kurland v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a three-month delay after learning of a missed deadline was an unreasonable delay in applying the Pioneer factors
• noting that a creditor who was sophisticated, represented by counsel, and aware of the chapter 11 cases by virtue of an automatic stay put in place on its prepetition litigation should have monitored the bankruptcy case and docket
• finding denial of receipt without evidence of a “formal tracking system” for incoming mail insufficient to rebut presumption
• accounting for a movant’s status as a “sophisticated party” with counsel in finding that movant had a duty to monitor the bankruptcy case
• rejecting the argument that judicial administration of the chapter 11 case would not be impacted because the debtors had not filed a plan and disclosure statement at the time the movant filed its motion
• deeming a request to file a late claim five months after the bar date order and more than three months after the bar date “significant” for its potential impact on the judicial administration of the debtors’ cases

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).