Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01345/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01345-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

.~ 

J 

In re: 

OHITBD STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TEN'l'H CIRCUIT 

KI CHUL CHOI and 

SARAH CHOI, 

Debtors. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

--------------------------------) 

CHONG OH KIM and SUN woo KIM, 

Appellants, 

FILED 

Uaitl'd States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

MAY 8- 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-1345 

(D.C. No. 90-C-70) 

(D. Colorado) 

KI CHUL CHOI and SARAH CHOI, 

Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMBNT* 

Before LOGAR, IIOORE, and BALDOCit, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-1345 Document: 010110106495 Date Filed: 05/08/1991 Page: 1 
• 

.. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Chong Oh Kim and Sun Woo Kim, creditors of Ki Chul Choi, 

appeal the district court's affirmance of an order of the 

bankruptcy court dismissing a complaint filed by the Kims to 

determine the dischargeability of Mr. Choi's debt. We affirm. 

The issue here is whether the mistaken issuance of a notice 

sent by the Clerk of the Bankruptcy court should absolve the Kims 

of their responsibility to timely file their complaint. The 

district court concluded the Kims are not entitled to equitable 

relief because they had notice of the actual bar date and did 

nothing to protect themselves when they received the second and 

conflicting notice from the bankruptcy court. We must agree. 

We have examined the authority relied upon by appellants and 

find it inapposite. Moreover, their suggestion that the defendant 

was not harmed by the delay in filing as a basis for reversal 

simply begs the jurisdictional effect of a bar date. The judgment 

of the district court is AFFIRMED essentially for the reasons 

stated in its order of October 29, 1990. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-1345 Document: 010110106495 Date Filed: 05/08/1991 Page: 2