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 
2 

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 
3 

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). 
4 

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). 
5 

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 
6 

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). 
7 

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