Policy on Granting R. 4001(a)(3) Relief as Matter of Course

Policy on Granting R. 4001(a)(3) Relief as Matter of Course

PDF Click here for the pdf document.

 Policy on Granting Rule 4001(a)(3) Relief as Matter of Course

This Court does not grant relief as a matter of course from the 14-day stay of execution
on an Order Granting Relief from the Automatic Stay, provided for in Fed. R. Bankr. P.
4001(a)(3). Many practitioners request this relief and incorporate it into their proposed stay relief
orders without setting forth any basis for the relief requested. Granting this relief as a matter of
routine, particularly in cases where stay relief has been unopposed and is being granted by
default, risks working considerable hardship on debtors, and particularly consumers, by
effectively mooting any post-order remedies or relief they might seek. The Rule grants the Court
wide discretion in shortening or eliminating the 14-day stay upon proper request. The Court
believes this discretion is rendered meaningless if the relief is routinely granted without any
stated basis.

Creditors with cause to seek to shorten or eliminate the 14-day stay pursuant to R.
4001(a)(3) should include in both their motion and proposed order a concise statement of the
basis for shortening or eliminating the stay. Examples of such reasons might be concerns
regarding the maintenance, insurance, or integrity of the collateral. The Court will approve an
order requesting that relief if all parties in interest have approved the order.

The Court appreciates creditors’ lawyers’ cooperation in altering their forms accordingly.

Dated this 7th day of October, 2011.

/s/ Robert E. Nugent
Chief Bankruptcy Judge

U. S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Kansas
/s/ Janice Miller Karlin, Bankruptcy Judge

U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Kansas
/s/ Dale L. Somers, Bankruptcy Judge

U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Kansas
/s/ Robert D. Berger, Bankruptcy Judge

U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Kansas

Report of Parties' Planning Meeting

PDF Click here for the pdf document

Revised 05/02/16


) Case No.

Debtor(s) )


) Adversary No.
) (omit if contested matter)


Report of Parties’ Planning Meeting1

(Held pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f))

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), a meeting was held on (date)
and was attended by:
Name Address and Phone Party represented

Nature of Complaint of Matter: (e.g. Adversary
proceeding objection to discharge, motion for relief from stay, etc.)
Pre-Discovery Disclosures. The parties [choose one] [have exchanged] [will
exchange] the information required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) on or before

All pretrial discovery will be commenced in time to be completed by (date) .
Reports from retained experts under Rule 26(a)(2) shall be due from
(name of party) to (name of party) by (date), and
from (name of party) to (name of party) by

On December 1, 2015, Rule 26(b)(1) regarding Discovery Scope and Limits was amended. This court requires the
parties, in formulating any plan of discovery, to consider the direction contained in that rule that discovery be proportional.

(name of party) shall prepare and submit a Pretrial Order not later
than (date). Final lists of witnesses and exhibits under Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(3) shall be due from both parties by the same date and shall be submitted with
the Pretrial Order.
Any motion for leave to join additional parties or to otherwise amend the pleadings
shall be filed by (date). [Note: The deadline shall be set 30 days before
the proposed pretrial order deadline]
All dispositive motions shall be filed by (date).
Settlement [choose one]: [is likely] [is unlikely] [cannot be evaluated prior to (insert
Do the parties believe Alternative Dispute Resolution might be helpful? Yes / No
This case can be ready for trial not later than (date) and is
expected to take (estimated number of days for trial).
Special issues: [If you are aware of discovery, settlement, or other issues that might
dictate how this case should be handled, please address those issues here.]
The Court is often able to cancel the Scheduling Conference, upon receipt of the
Parties Planning Meeting Report, if the parties are in consensus on the scheduling
of the matter. Does any party request the Court conduct a Scheduling Conference
in this case (such as, e.g., to discuss discovery disputes, settlement possibilities, or
any other relevant matter), notwithstanding the submission of this Report?
The parties consent to canceling the Scheduling Conference OR
The parties (or party —name the party) request(s) the Scheduling
Conference be held.
Report should be prepared by counsel for the plaintiff (if Adversary Proceeding) and circulated intime for filing with the Court not later than four working days prior to the previously noticed
scheduling conference. The failure of the parties to file this report may result in the summary
dismissal of the complaint or contested matter.

Approval signatures of all counsel:

(Signature lines shall include all counsels’ Supreme court ID numbers, addresses, phone numbers
and business email address).


You are here: Home