In Re: William F. Quezada

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_________________________________
)
IN RE WILLIAM F. QUEZADA, )
) Civil Action No. 13-638 (EGS)
Debtor/Appellant. )
_________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending before the Court is Appellant William Quezada’s appeal
of a ruling by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Columbia in Bankruptcy Case No. 13-011. Upon
consideration of the briefs, the applicable law, and the entire
record, the Court AFFIRMS the ruling of the bankruptcy court.
I. BACKGROUND
Mr. Quezada sought to avail himself of the protections of
Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code while facing imminent
foreclosure on a multi-unit apartment building he owned in
Washington, D.C. The building was previously owned by Mr.
Quezada’s former wife, who obtained a mortgage on the property
for $445,800 in 2006. See Deed of Trust Note, Dkt. No. 2 at 30-
37. In 2009, the property was awarded to Mr. Quezada during
divorce proceedings before the Superior Court for the District
of Columbia. See Order, Quezada v. Lopez, Nos. 4DRB560, 4DRB1282
(D.C. Super. Ct. Dec. 9, 2009). The promissory note related to
the mortgage came to be held by the Dyer Trust 2012-1 (“Dyer”).
See Assignment of Deed, Dkt. No. 2 at 70-71. When Mr. Quezada
failed to make mortgage payments, Dyer foreclosed on the
property. See Dyer’s Mot. to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 2 at 21.
Dyer initially scheduled the foreclosure sale for January 10,
2013, id., but Mr. Quezada filed this case on January 8, 2013.
See Petition, Dkt. No. 2 at 5-7. Along with his bankruptcy
petition, Mr. Quezada filed some, but not all, of the financial
documents required by the Bankruptcy Code. The following day,
the bankruptcy court sent Mr. Quezada a notice directing him to
file the remaining documents—including copies of recent payment
advices and a Chapter 13 plan of reorganization—by January 22,
2013. See Notice, In re William F. Quezada, No. 13-011 (Bankr.
D.D.C. Jan. 9, 2013), Dkt. No. 10. The notice warned that
“[f]ailure to file the missing documents . . . may result in
dismissal of this case.” Id. at 1. On January 23, 2013, the
bankruptcy court, sua sponte, ordered that the documents be
filed by no later than February 6, 2013. See Order, In re
William F. Quezada, No. 13-011 (Bankr. D.D.C. Jan. 23, 2013),
Dkt. No. 15. Mr. Quezada never filed the documents.
This prevented the United States Trustee, Cynthia Niklas, from
holding a meeting of creditors, which was initially scheduled
for February 11, 2013. See Notice of Meeting of Creditors, In re
William F. Quezada, No. 13-011 (Bankr. D.D.C. Jan. 9, 2013),
Dkt. No. 11. Ms. Niklas canceled the meeting and, on February
12, 2013, moved to dismiss the petition. See Trustee’s Mot. to
2
Dismiss, Dkt. No. 2 at 9-12. She argued that Mr. Quezada’s
petition should be dismissed for, among other reasons, failure
to submit required documents to the bankruptcy court and failure
to submit copies of recent income-tax returns in advance of the
meeting of creditors. See id.1
On February 21, 2013, Dyer filed a motion to dismiss the
petition, which raised additional arguments not covered in Ms.
Niklas’s motion. See Dyer’s Mot. to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 2 at 19-
28. Dyer’s motion also included a notice to Mr. Quezada that
failing to respond within twenty-one days could result in the
motion being granted without a hearing. See id. at 27.
Mr. Quezada did not respond to either motion. Accordingly, on
March 18, 2013, the bankruptcy court granted the motions as
unopposed and dismissed the petition with prejudice to the
filing of a case under the bankruptcy code for 180 days. See
Order, Dkt. No. 2 at 160. Mr. Quezada filed a notice of appeal
on April 1, 2013. See Notice of Appeal, Dkt. No. 2 at 161-62.
That appeal is now ripe for the Court’s decision.
1
The motion included a notice that a hearing would be held on
March 22, 2013. Id. at 11; see Local Bankr. R. 5070-1(a)
(permitting parties to schedule a hearing in this manner). The
notice also informed Mr. Quezada, as required by Local
Bankruptcy Rule 9013-1(b)(3), that “within twenty one (21) days
. . . you must file and serve a written objection to the motion”
and that “[i]f you fail to file a timely objection, the motion
may be granted by the court without a hearing.” Trustee’s Mot.
to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 2 at 11 (emphasis omitted).
3
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court has jurisdiction over appeals of decisions of the
bankruptcy court. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) (conferring
jurisdiction on federal district courts “to hear appeals . . .
from final judgments, orders, and decrees” of bankruptcy
courts). On appeal from a bankruptcy court, a district court
“may affirm, modify, or reverse a bankruptcy judge’s judgment,
order, or decree or remand with instructions for further
proceedings.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8013.
A district court reviews a bankruptcy court’s findings of fact
only for indication that they are clearly erroneous. Id.; see
also In re Johnson, 236 B.R. 510, 518 (D.D.C. 1999). “A finding
[of fact] is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence
to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is
left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
been committed.” Johnson, 236 B.R. at 518 (quoting United States
v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). A bankruptcy
court’s legal conclusions, however, are reviewed de novo. See In
re WPG, Inc., 282 B.R. 66, 68 (D.D.C. 2002) (citing Cooter &
Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405 (1990)). The party
seeking to reverse the bankruptcy court’s ruling bears the
burden of proof and may not prevail by showing “simply that
another conclusion could have been reached.” Id. (quotation
marks omitted).
4
III. DISCUSSION
The Bankruptcy Court dismissed Mr. Quezada’s petition in a
brief order, which granted the pending motions to dismiss as
unopposed. See Order, Dkt. No. 2 at 160. “The court’s role is
not to act as an advocate for the plaintiff and construct legal
arguments on his behalf in order to counter those in the motion
to dismiss.” Stephenson v. Cox, 223 F. Supp. 2d 119, 122 (D.D.C.
2002). Accordingly, “a court may treat those arguments that the
plaintiff failed to address as conceded.” Buggs v. Powell, 293
F. Supp. 2d 135, 141 (D.D.C. 2003); see also Twelve John Does v.
District of Columbia, 117 F.3d 571, 577 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (“Where
the . . . court relies on the absence of a response as a basis
for treating the motion as conceded, we honor its enforcement of
the rule.”). The bankruptcy court was therefore justified in
dismissing the petition. In any event, Mr. Quezada’s petition
was subject to dismissal for at least three other reasons.
First, Mr. Quezada did not file all of the financial documents
that must be submitted within fifteen days of filing a
bankruptcy petition. He never submitted “copies of all payment
advices or other evidence of payment received within 60 days
before the date of the filing of the petition.” 11 U.S.C.
§ 521(a)(1)(B). This may lead to dismissal “on request of the
United States trustee,” 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c)(9), and dismissal is
“automatic[]” when the information is not submitted within
5
forty-five days after the petition was filed. See 11 U.S.C. §
521(i)(1). In her motion to dismiss, the United States Trustee
requested that Mr. Quezada’s petition be dismissed on this
ground and, in any event, dismissal would have been automatic
because, by the time the bankruptcy court dismissed the
petition, sixty-nine days had elapsed since the petition had
been filed.
Second, Mr. Quezada did not file a Chapter 13 plan within
fourteen days of the date on which his petition was filed, as
required by 11 U.S.C. § 1321 and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy
Procedure 3015(b). Indeed, he never filed a Chapter 13 plan.
This, too, is grounds for dismissal of the petition “on request
of . . . the United States trustee.” 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c)(3); see
Trustee’s Mot. to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 2 at 9.
Third, Mr. Quezada did not submit his tax returns to the
United States Trustee. He was required to submit his most recent
federal income-tax return by no later than seven days prior to
the date on which the meeting of creditors was scheduled to be
held, 11 U.S.C. § 521(e)(2)(A), and to submit his tax returns
for the past four years by the day before the meeting. 11 U.S.C.
§ 1308(a). Mr. Quezada never submitted any tax returns and the
court would therefore have been required to dismiss his petition
pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 521(e)(2)(B), 1307(e).
6
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court AFFIRMS the ruling of the
Bankruptcy Court. An appropriate Order accompanies this
Memorandum Opinion.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: Emmet G. Sullivan
United States District Judge
December 20, 2013
7