2020-10-22_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1980004 ‎(5)‎

• Permit No: C1980004
• IBM Index Class Name: General Documents
• Doc Date: 10/22/2020
• Doc Name Note: Case No. 20-12043 ‎(GRH)‎ Hopedale Mining LLC
• Doc Name: Bankruptcy Notice
• From: Epiq Corporate Restructuring, LLC
• To: DRMS
• Permit Index Doc Type: General Correspondence
• Email Name: JRS
• Email Name: JDM
• Email Name: GRM
• Email Name: CMM
• Email Name: CCW
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

V
1 Case 1:20-bk-12043 Doc 486 Filed 10/16/20 Entered 10/16/20 10:55:01 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 5
terminating a stay, if the claim or cause of action in a civil action
has been stayed under § 362 of the Code, or (C) 30 days after a
trustee qualifies in a chapter 11 reorganization case but not later than
180 days after the order for relief.
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9027(a)(2).
6. Accordingly, the time within which the Debtors must file motions to remove a
pending prepetition Actions is currently set to expire on October 20, 2020.
7. Bankruptcy Rule 9006, however, permits the Court to enlarge the Removal Period
and provides, in pertinent part:
Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of this
subdivision, when an act is required or allowed to be done at or
within a specified period by these rules or by a notice given
thereunder or by order of court, the court for cause shown may at
any time in its discretion (1) with or without motion or notice order
the period enlarged if the request therefor is made before the
expiration of the period originally prescribed or as extended by a
previous order or (2) on motion made after the expiration of the
specified period permit the act to be done where the failure to act
was the result of excusable neglect.
Id. 9006(b)(1).
8. Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b)(1), this Court has the authority to extend the
Removal Period under 28 U.S.C. §1452 and Bankruptcy Rule 9027. See, e.g., In re Pioneer Inv.
Services Co., 943 F.2d 673, 676 (6th Cir. 1991) (explaining that Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b) permits
enlargement of time to remove state court actions "if the request therefor is made before the
expiration of the period originally prescribed"); In re Pillow, 2013 WL 10252924 at *4 (Bankr.
W.D. Mich. 2013) (same); In re Larry Merritt Co., 166 B.R. 875, 880 n.9 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn.
1993) (same); In re Love, 232 B.R. 373, 381 n.14 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1999) (same).
9. In fact, courts in this District have granted similar extensions of the removal period
in other large chapter 11 cases upon the filing of a timely motion by the debtors. See e.g., In re
3