Case Name: In re WESTGATE-CALIFORNIA CORPORATION. PEPPERLAND, INC., Bonsall Highlands Estates, Inc., Keystone Brokerage Company, Pacific View Condominiums, Inc., San Luis Rey Estates, San Luis Rey Downs, Inc., and Urick & Hollis, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WESTGATE-CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1980-06-18
Citations: 621 F.2d 983
Docket Number: No. 77-1541
Parties: In re WESTGATE-CALIFORNIA CORPORATION. PEPPERLAND, INC., Bonsall Highlands Estates, Inc., Keystone Brokerage Company, Pacific View Condominiums, Inc., San Luis Rey Estates, San Luis Rey Downs, Inc., and Urick & Hollis, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WESTGATE-CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before GOODWIN and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges, and LUCAS, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Bankruptcy Reporter
Volume: 4
Pages: 983–984

Head Matter:
In re WESTGATE-CALIFORNIA CORPORATION. PEPPERLAND, INC., Bonsall Highlands Estates, Inc., Keystone Brokerage Company, Pacific View Condominiums, Inc., San Luis Rey Estates, San Luis Rey Downs, Inc., and Urick & Hollis, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WESTGATE-CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 77-1541.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted June 4, 1980.
Decided June 18, 1980.
Louis M. Karp, San Diego, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Isaac N. Pachulski, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellee.
Before GOODWIN and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges, and LUCAS, District Judge.
The Honorable Malcolm M. Lucas, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In this appeal from Chapter X proceedings of the Bankruptcy Act, the record demonstrates that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in dismissing amended proofs of claim.
The amended proofs were filed after the last day for filing claims against each of the debtors had passed. They cannot relate back to the date of the original proofs because the original claims did not give fair notice of the conduct, transaction or occurrence that forms the basis of the claim asserted in the amendment. In re Ebeling, 123 F.2d 520 (7th Cir. 1941).
AFFIRMED.