The court denied a motion to amend a complaint objecting to the discharge of debt in a bankruptcy case. The original complaint alleged the debtor failed to disclose assets like a corral and horses in bankruptcy filings. The proposed amendment alleged rental property fraud. The court found the proposed amendment did not relate back to the original complaint under Rule 15(c), as the facts alleged were different. A two-day trial was scheduled for May 31st and June 1st to resolve the original complaint.

1. ORIGIN/
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
--o0o--
In Re: ) Case No. ND03-12487-RR
GERALDINE REDMOND, ) Santa Barbara, California
) Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Debtor. ) 11:00 a.m.
ADV. 04-01005 SULPHUR MOUNTAIN
LAND AND LIVESTOCK LLC VS
GERALDINE JAY RED
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
OBJECTING TO DISCHARGE
SULPHUR MOUNTAIN LAND AND
LIVESTOCK CO., LLC VS DEBTOR
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROBIN L. RIBLET
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiff:
For the Defendant:
DAVID BLAKE CHATFIELD, ESQ.
Law Offices of David Blake
Chatfield
2625 Townsgate Road
Suite 330
Westlake Village, California
91361
(805) 267-1220
STEVEN M. STANLEY, ESQ.
1801 Oak Street, Suite 151
Bakersfield, California 93301
(805) 334-2735
Proceedings recorded by•electronic sound recording;
transcript produced by transcription service.
Echo Reporting, Inc.

2. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ii.
Court Recorder: Kam J. Rust
United States Bankruptcy Court
1415 State Street
Santa Barbara, California
93101
(805) 884-4889
Transcriber: Jordan R. Keilty
Echo Reporting, Inc.
6336 Greenwich Drive, Suite B
San Diego, California 92122
(858) 453-7590
Echo Reporting, Inc.

3. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY, APRIL 20, 2005 11:00 AM
--000--
(Call to order of the Court.)
THE COURT: Number 2.1, Geraldine Redmond, Sulphur
Mountain Land and Livestock, LLC, against the Debtor.
MR. CHATFIELD: Good morning, your Honor. David
Chatfield for the Moving Party.
MR. STANLEY: Good morning, your Honor. Steven
Stanley on behalf of the Debtor/Defendant, Geraldine
Redmond.
THE COURT: Can you show me language in the
original complaint that even hints of this rental fraud when
the complaint talks about failure to maintain records and
failure to include assets in schedules? I am at a loss to
see how this relates back. Mr. Chatfield?
MR. CHATFIELD: Well, your Honor, the -- the --
THE COURT: Just because you say so in broad terms
doesn't make it so.
MR. CHATFIELD: I -- I agree, your Honor. The
complaint did not assert the facts -- even though it's based
upon the same transaction, did not allege the facts which we
are alleging in our amendment because we didn't have the --
the evidence to prove the facts, and it -- the relation --
THE COURT: What facts? How can it relate back?
I mean, it's not the same facts. The facts alleged in the
Echo Reporting, Inc.

4. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
complaint had to do with:
"Defendant knowingly and fraudulently
made a false oath by omitting from her
schedules any reference to certain
personal property, including a corral
valued in excess of $5,000 and horses
valued in excess of $10,000.
Additionally, she concealed, destroyed,
mutilated, falsified, or failed to keep
or preserve any recorded information,
including books, documents, and records
from which Defendant's financial
condition and business transactions
might be ascertained."
That's not the same facts. That's not Englander.
Englander talked about three loans, and in the original
complaint it just said "They defrauded us. We made three
loans. They still owe it to us. It's non-dischargeable."
They didn't even say it's defrauded. They said it's non-
dischargeable under Section 523. And then they filed an
amended complaint and said, "Oh, by the way, here's why it's
non-dischargeable," but it's the same three loans.
Nothing in your original complaint talks about any
landlord/tenant relationship, period.
MR. CHATFIELD: Well, your Honor, it -- our case
Echo Reporting, Inc.

5. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
really rests more on the equitable tolling doctrine than on
the relation back doctrine in that under that doctrine --
THE COURT: That's not what you briefed. You
briefed 15(c).
MR. CHATFIELD: Your Honor, I -- I recognize that
we did -- we did raise in our brief the -- the policies of
the equitable tolling doctrine, although we did not cite the
cases or actually cite the doctrine itself. As the Court
knows, that the -- the Ninth Circuit has determined that
the -- that the time limits are not jurisdiction and are
subject to waiver, estoppel, or equitable tolling, and in
this situation it cries out for equitable tolling.
THE COURT: Don't go there. You didn't brief it.
You didn't brief it, and my recollection of the equitable
tolling case law doesn't apply to a situation like this. In
fact, you knew about this a couple of years ago.
MR. CHATFIELD: Well, your Honor --
THE COURT: You knew the allegation had been made
a couple of years ago. You only found out recently that she
admitted it.
MR. CHATFIELD: No. She -- we didn't find out
that she admitted it. We found out recently that she
perjured herself in her deposition when she denied it, when
she denied ever having been served or having any personal
knowledge of this litigation. And how could she have
Echo Reporting, Inc.

6. 4
fraudulently put this information on her credit application
when she never knew about the litigation? And then we
recently discovered documents which proved that she was
personally served with the litigation. We've attached them
to our --
THE COURT: Right.
MR. CHATFIELD: -- reply brief.
THE COURT: Yes, but I'm denying your motion
because it doesn't relate back to original complaint, and
that's what you briefed, and that's what you raised your
motion on.
So I will see you on May 31st, 9:00 o'clock for
trial.
MR. CHATFIELD: All right.
THE COURT: May 31st and June 1st, 9:00 o'clock.
Two-day trial. Do you still think it's going to take two
days, gentlemen?
MR. CHATFIELD: It could take up to two days, your
Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. STANLEY: I think one day, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, we'll see. Mr. Stanley,
you'll prepare a brief response -- I mean a -- a brief
order.
MR. STANLEY: Order. I will, your Honor.
Echo Reporting, Inc.

7. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5
THE COURT: Yes. Thank you.
MR. CHATFIELD: Your Honor, I do need to bring up
one thing about the trial.
THE COURT: What's that, sir?
MR. CHATFIELD: I have another trial which has
just been moved in Los Angeles in Superior Court to the
middle of May which I'm hoping will be over --
THE COURT: Federal preemption. You're showing up
here on the 31st of May.
MR. CHATFIELD: All right.
THE COURT: That just got moved. Mine's been set
since February 1st.
MR. CHATFIELD: All right. Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: You tell them you have a federal trial
going on the 31st of May.
Do you have the instruction sheets for the
presentation of evidence and filing trial briefs?
MR. CHATFIELD: No, I don't.
THE COURT: I gave Mr. Stanley two copies on
February 1st.
MR. STANLEY: Yes.
THE COURT: Somehow you didn't join us that day,
Mr. Chatfield.
MR. CHATFIELD: I apologize, your Honor.
THE COURT: Uh-huh.
Echo Reporting, Inc.

8. MR. STANLEY: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. CHATFIELD: Thank you.
THE COURT: Thank you, gentlemen.
(Proceedings concluded.)
I certify that the foregoing is a correct
transcript from the electronic sound recording of the
proceedings in the above-entitled matter.
rf Ov72 Wac-j ehO/aanscriber Date
FEDERALLY CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT AUTHENTICATED BY:
4.401,[40,(Y)L. . Francisco, President
Echo Reporting, Inc.
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Echo Reporting, Inc.