UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

In Re: A. H. ROBINS COMPANY,

Debtor.

ANN KATHERINE DE LA QUADRA,

No. 98-1019

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

DALKON SHIELD CLAIMANTS TRUST,

Trust-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.

Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge.

(CA-85-1307-R)

Submitted: June 30, 1998

Decided: August 6, 1998

Before WIDENER, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Ann Katherine De La Quadra, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Gunter Foster, DALKON SHIELD CLAIMANTS TRUST, Richmond, Virginia,

for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Ann Katherine De La Quadra, a disappointed Dalkon Shield

Claimant, appeals the district court's order denying her motion for

reinstatement of her Disallowed Claim. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

De La Quadra filed a late Dalkon Shield Claim on April 18, 1991.

The Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (the Trust) sent a confirmation of

receipt of her claim on April 23, 1991, to De La Quadra at the return

address provided on the envelope in which she had mailed her claim.

Among other things, the confirmation warned that the Trust should be

notified of any change of address. The confirmation was not returned

to the Trust as nondeliverable.

In December 1994 the Trust sent to all Late Claimants a notice that

it was preparing to send them packets of information containing claim

forms that had to be completed and returned by June 30, 1995. In January 1995, the Trust mailed the information packets. The packet

warned Late Claimants in five separate places that the Trust would

disallow the claims unless the claim forms were submitted by June

30, 1995. Subsequently, on March 2, May 1, and June 1, the Trust

sent reminders of the deadline.

All these materials were addressed to De La Quadra at the Oregon

address given on the envelope in which she had mailed her claim.

Each warning was returned to the Trust with a notation that it was not

deliverable. The Trust unsuccessfully attempted to locate De La Quadra through a search using her social security number.

De La Quadra missed the June 30 deadline, and the Trust disallowed her claim. In April 1997 she moved the district court to reinstate her claim. The Trust opposed her motion, and the district court

 2
held a hearing on the matter. De La Quadra appeared at the hearing.

She stated that she was unaware of the deadline and admitted that she

moved without notifying the Trust of her whereabouts. De La Quadra

blamed her not receiving the warnings on the postal service; she felt

that her mail should have been forwarded. De La Quadra also testified

that she did not contact the Trust between 1991 and 1997 to check on

the status of her claim.

The district court ruled from the bench that the Trust properly disallowed De La Quadra's claim for failing to meet the deadline. The

court concluded that the fault was hers for not keeping the Trust

apprised of her address. Accordingly, her motion for reinstatement

was denied. De La Quadra timely appeals.

The district court retains the exclusive jurisdiction to determine

whether "a Disallowed Claim should be reinstated." Debtor's Sixth

Amended and Restated Plan of Reorganization § 8.05(c). No document sets the standard of proof or assigns the burden of proof in cases

in which a claimant seeks reinstatement of a claim which the Trust

has disallowed. We therefore look to the Bankruptcy Code for guidance.

Under the Bankruptcy Code, "[a] claim that has been . . . disallowed may be reconsidered for cause. A reconsidered claim may be

allowed or disallowed according to the equities of the case." 11

U.S.C. § 502(j) (1994). Courts have read § 502(j) in conjunction with

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and held that the burden of establishing cause

rests with the moving party. See In re Salem Mortgage Co., 791 F.2d

456, 459 (6th Cir. 1986); In re H.R.P. Auto Ctr., Inc., 130 B.R. 247,

255 (N.D. Ohio 1991).

Although De La Quadra attacked, in her motion for reinstatement,

an administrative decision of the Trust instead of a court order, she

is in much the same position as a § 502(j) or Rule 60(b) movant. The

burden was hers to establish cause warranting reinstatement.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that she had

not met this burden. See Schultz v. Butcher, 24 F.3d 626, 630 (4th Cir.

1994); In re Mathiason, 16 F.3d 234, 239 (8th Cir. 1994). She failed

to keep the Trust apprised of her address and did not inquire of the

 3
Trust as to the status of her Late Claim for a period of six years.

Under these circumstances, the fault in this matter was hers. Accordingly, the denial of her motion for reinstatement was entirely proper.

We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are fully

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 4