Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): to do it. The Bankruptcy Court provided counsel for Debtor with the opportunity at the October 3, 2013 status conference to address IndyMac’s argument that conversion was appropriate “based on the record that’s before the Court today” due to “lack of compliance with [the Bankruptcy Court’s] status conference order,” including the untimely filing of the status report and the “monthly operating reports [which] are missing” or “chronically late throughout the entire case.” (Suppl. Notice of Lodgment Supp. Mot. Stay, Ex. 7 at 5-6, 8, ECF No. 20-8). The Scheduling Order and the October 3, 2013 hearing provided Debtor with sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard to meet due process requirements. See In re Bijelonic, No. CV 11-08077-JVS, 2012 WL 2263289, at *5 (C.D.Cal. June 15, 2012) (<HOLDING>). Debtor contends that, prior to the October 3, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a bankruptcy courts initial scheduling order provided sufficient notice and opportunity to present evidence to meet due process requirements when the bankruptcy court sua sponte converted a chapter 11 case to chapter 7 because a debtor failed to comply with an initial scheduling order by not submitting a status report prior to the second status con ference and failing to appear at the second status conference (B) recognizing the distinction between the reorganized debtor and the converted debtor and holding an asset which was not property of the original chapter 11 estate does not become property of the converted chapter 7 estate (C) holding tort action accruing after original chapter 7 petition not part of estate when case converted to chapter 13 and then back to chapter 7 (D) holding that a bankruptcy court is given wide discretion to convert a chapter 11 case to chapter 7 for cause and an order for conversion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion (E) holding that claims for alleged legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty against attorneys that represented the chapter 11 debtor in possession belonged to the bankruptcy estate and upon conversion of the case to chapter 7 such claims belonged to the chapter 7 trustee as successor to the debtor in possession
Output (English): holding that claims for alleged legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty against attorneys that represented the chapter 11 debtor in possession belonged to the bankruptcy estate and upon conversion of the case to chapter 7 such claims belonged to the chapter 7 trustee as successor to the debtor in possession