In discharge cases, the opportunity to amend is especially important because of the short time frame under which such a complaint must be filed. In re Gunn, 111 B.R. 291, 293 (9th Cir. BAP 1990).
We review for abuse of discretion the bankruptcy court's decision to allow or deny amendment of pleadings under Civil Rule 15(c) and Rule 7015. In re Magno, 216 B.R. at 38; First Fed. Sav. Bank v. Gunn (In re Gunn), 111 B.R. 291, 292 (9th Cir. BAP 1990). Whether cause exists to extend the filing deadline to object to a debtor's discharge is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
We review for abuse of discretion the bankruptcy court's decision to allow or deny amendment of pleadings under Civil Rule 15(c) and Rule 7015. In re Magno, 216 B.R. at 38; First Fed. Sav. Bank v. Gunn (In re Gunn), 111 B.R. 291, 292 (9th Cir. BAP 1990). Whether cause exists to extend the filing deadline to object to a debtor's discharge is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
The Plaintiff moved ore tenus at trial to amend its complaint to include this additional subsection after the bar date for filing the original complaint had passed. In allowing the creditor to amend its complaint objecting to discharge and dischargeability under sections 523(a)(2)(A) and (B), as well as section 727(a)(5), to assert additional causes under sections 727(a)(3) and (4), the Court in In re Gunn, 111 B.R. 291 (9th Cir. BAP 1990), stated the following: The amended complaint was filed long after the Bankruptcy Rule 4004(a) deadline had passed.
Cf. In re Gunn, 111 B.R. 291, 293 (9th Cir. BAP 1990) (amendment to dischargeability complaint filed after bar date related back to original complaint where both pleadings arose out of the same transaction and occurrence and required that similar facts be proved). Notice
Cf. In re Gunn, 111 B.R. 291, 293 (9th Cir. BAP 1990) (amendment to dischargeability complaint filed after bar date related back to original complaint where both pleadings arose out of the same transaction and occurrence and required that similar facts be proved).
Although the parties assume that it was necessary to amend the original complaint in order for the U.S. Trustee to argue that the Ravasias made false oaths on their schedules regarding their income and expenses and their 2016 tax refund, paragraphs 54 and 56 of the original complaint were sufficient to put the Ravasias on notice of both the factual and legal grounds for the U.S. Trustee's claims. See In re Gunn, 111 B.R. 291, 292-93 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1990). An amendment relates back to the date of the original complaint when it "asserts a claim or defense that arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out-or attempted to be set out-in the original pleading."
As long as the newly-added theories of relief are based on the same set of facts or transactions as those pled in the initial Complaint, they relate back to the date of the Complaint. First Fed. Sav. Bank of Rogers v. Gunn (In re Gunn), 111 B.R. 291 (9th Cir. BAP Cal. 1990). The court will therefore allow Plaintiff to amend the Complaint to add the section 523(a)(6) claim but the facts alleged to support it must arise out of the same transactions described initially.
As long as the newly-added theories of relief are based on the same set of facts or transactions as those pled in the initial Complaint, they relate back to the date of the Complaint. First Fed. Sav. Bank of Rogers v. Gunn (In re Gunn) , 111 B.R. 291 (9th Cir. BAP Cal. 1990). The court will therefore allow Plaintiff to amend the Complaint to add the section 523(a)(6) claim but the facts alleged to support it must arise out of the same transactions described initially.
Thus, if the original pleading adequately identifies the factual circumstances out of which the amended claim arises, the amendment will relate back. Kelcey v. Tankers Co., 217 F.2d 541, 543 (2d Cir.1954); First Fed. Savs. Bank of Rogers, Arkansas v. Gunn (In re Gunn), 111 B.R. 291, 292 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1990); Gelling v. Dean (In re Dean), 11 B.R. 542, 545 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1981), aff'd, 687 F.2d 307 (9th Cir. 1982); The CIT Group/Factoring Mfrs. Hanover, Inc. v. Srour (In re Srour), 138 B.R. 413. 418 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1992).