Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): noted that Plaintiffs’ claims “shall be litigated in federal district court,” and that “[i]f upheld by the court, they shall be paid along with, those claims found in Class 6 above.” In re Club Zippers, Inc., No. 04-11644, Docket No. 31. Thus, it appears as though the bankruptcy court accepted Plaintiffs’ Adversary Proceeding as an informal proof of claim and in evaluating the documents filed in the bankruptcy proceeding the elements of an informal proof of claim are clearly met in this case. Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint constitutes a written demand on the debtor’s estate as Plaintiffs state a cause of action against Club Zippers and seek damages for (1) medical expenses, (2) pain and mental anguish, (3) funeral and burial expenses, and (4) loss of future earni 1986) (<HOLDING>). Limiting an informal claim to a complaint to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a chapter 13 debtor should be able to obtain a copy of his transcript in light of the broader discharge provision of chapter 13 (B) holding that complaints against a chapter 7 discharge coupled with objections to a chapter 13 plan of reorganization are sufficient to establish an informal proof of claim (C) holding that notwithstanding a debtors inability to obtain a chapter 13 discharge a debtor is nonetheless eligible to file a chapter 13 case (D) 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 (E) holding congress did not intend categorically to foreclose the benefit of chapter 13 reorganization to a debtor who previously has filed for chapter 7 relief
Output (English): holding congress did not intend categorically to foreclose the benefit of chapter 13 reorganization to a debtor who previously has filed for chapter 7 relief