Opinion ID: 773643
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The 9006(b) Motion Requirement

Text: 28 Sheehan argues that Oyama cannot avail himself of Rule 9006(b) because he never brought a separate motion, as required by the rule. We conclude, however, that the motion requirement was narrowly satisfied in this case. 29 Rule 9006(b)(1) provides that, after the expiration of the time period, the court may excuse the delay onlyon motion made. No written Rule 9006(b) motion was filed in this case. Instead, Oyama's attorney urged the court to consider the excusable neglect standard during the hearing on Sheehan's motion to dismiss. 30 Normally, a bankruptcy court is not required to rule on an oral, non-trial motion. The local bankruptcy rules for the Central District of California provide that [u]nless otherwise provided by rule or order of the Court, no oral motions will be recognized except during trial. C.D. Cal. Local Bankr. R. 9013-1 (2000). 7 In the present case, the bankruptcy judge admonished counsel at the hearing that it is improper to argue anything that's not in your papers. The judge, nonetheless, then ruled on the oral motion despite its impropriety, ruling that the Pioneer test was not applicable in the context of a nondischargeability proceeding under §§ 523. Thus, the court effectively recognized the motion and denied it on the merits. 8 31 Furthermore, as Oyama pointed out, all of the arguments for and against a Rule 9006(b) motion to enlarge would be identical to those made for and against Sheehan's motion to dismiss under Rule 4. This suggests that the concerns of notice and opportunity to respond to the motion were satisfied in this case. 9 32 In light of the bankruptcy judge's ruling that the Pioneer standard did not apply to nondischargeability proceedings, it would have been futile for Oyama to submit a formal motion to enlarge for excusable neglect.