Do you have to add three days to the notice period when serving by mail – or not?

I noticed the following tentative ruling continuing a motion for relief hearing recently:

The Motion [for relief] was . . . served on Debtor by mail, and set for hearing exactly 21 days later.   While LBR 9013-1(d)(2) specifies that notice must be filed and served not later than 21 days before the hearing date, FRBP 9006(f) requires that an additional 3 days be provided for motions served by mail.

I recalled several years ago being told by a judge that the three day rule doesn’t apply to MFR.  Yikes.  Have I been neglecting a defense since it seems to be more common these days that these motions are served on exactly 21 days notice?

No – FRBP 9006(f) applies only to certain motions.  FRBP 9006(f) states:

When there is a right or requirement to act or undertake some proceedings within a prescribed period after being served and that service is by mail . . . three days are added after the prescribed period would otherwise expire under Rule 9006(a).

Meaning?  When the motion tells the debtor he must do something within a certain am0unt of time after being served, he gets three more days if served by mail.  Most of our motions require a response within 14 days of the hearing, not within some amount of time after being served.  So the additional three days doesn’t apply to most motions.

On a side note:  a year or so ago I was served with a MFR on a very large piece of property, we thought worth $25 million.  The big-firm creditor lawyers gave us exactly 21 days notice – giving me 7 days to prepare the opposition.  When I complained (a little) to the judge at the hearing he scowled at me and I immediately dropped the comment.  The scowl told me – “why didn’t you file a motion for continuance?”  “You can’t just show up at the hearing and complain about the short time.”  I’m pretty sure he would have granted the request for a continuance.

One Reply to Do you have to add three days to the notice period when serving by mail – or not?

  1. Commenting on a post over 2.5 years old may not be in the best form, but this post greatly helped me! Ever since I discovered this rule I’ve struggled with the difference between the routine practice I’ve seen, where 9006(f) isn’t considered in the vast majority of cases, and rule’s text. Drawing out the distinction that it only applies to actions timed with respect to the service date (which is rare) makes the situation so much clearer!

Leave a Reply


9 − = seven