Opinion ID: 478416
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Late Objectors

Text: 26 The above discussion concerning the district court's discretionary authority applies with equal force to the Late Objectors' contention that the district judge erred in denying their motions to file late objections. 8 Efficient and orderly categorization of Investor claims was needed to determine the extent of the receivership assets and the nature and extent of the Investors' claims to those assets. Cf. Wencke I, 622 F.2d at 1373 (upholding stay of proceedings in light of difficulty encountered in determining the financial status of the receivership estate). 27 Accordingly, the district court's categorization procedure and deadlines were reasonable in light of the need for categorization of investor claims and the length of time that the Intervenors had to respond. The notices sent by the Receiver were sufficiently clear and gave reasonable notice to the Late Objectors of the categorization scheme, the opportunity to object, and the consequences of failing to meet the objection deadline. Moreover, the district court carefully considered the motions for late filing, held hearings on the motions, and in fact granted the motions in a number of cases. 28 The Intervenors also object to the district court's use of summary proceedings in adopting the categorization procedure and enforcing the objection deadlines. They argue that the First Notice should have been treated as a complaint and the Claim Form as an answer. Analogizing to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, they assert that they should have been liberally permitted to amend their answer. 29 We have repeatedly held, however, that the use of summary proceedings to determine appropriate relief in equity receiverships, as opposed to plenary proceedings under the Federal Rules, is within the jurisdictional authority of a district court. See Wencke II, 783 F.2d at 836-38; Universal Finance, 760 F.2d at 1037; United States v. Arizona Fuels Corp., 739 F.2d 455, 458 (9th Cir.1984). Such procedures avoid formalities that would slow down the resolution of disputes. This promotes judicial efficiency and reduces litigation costs to the receivership. Wencke II, 783 F.2d at 837 n. 9. Specifically, we have noted that [r]eceivership courts have the general power to use summary procedure in allowing, disallowing, and subordinating claims of creditors. Arizona Fuels, 739 F.2d at 458. The procedures used by the district court in this case were a reasonable and practicable attempt to administer the receivership without depriving the creditors of fair notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond. Cf. Wencke II, 783 F.2d at 837-38 (use of summary procedures permissible if potential creditors of the receivership are given adequate notice); Universal Financial, 760 F.2d at 1037 (same). 30 Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Late Objectors' motions.