IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 98-30829
Summary Calendar
_____________________
In The Matter Of: HARRAH’S JAZZ COMPANY, INC.,
Debtor.
JOHN L. BRANNON, II,
Appellant,
versus
HARRAH’S JAZZ COMPANY, INC.
Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans
USDC No. 97-CV-737-L
_________________________________________________________________
December 23, 1998
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
John L. Brannon, II, appeals a bankruptcy court’s denial of
his motion for leave to file a proof of late claim. Because we
find that the district court did not err in affirming the
bankruptcy court’s ruling, we affirm.
Brannon was injured in a casino in New Orleans operated by
Harrah’s Jazz Company (“HJC”) in 1995. HJC was aware of Brannon’s
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
injury and, in fact, paid for Brannon’s medical bills. In 1996,
HJC petitioned for relief under Chapter 11 in bankruptcy court.
The bankruptcy court set the claims bar date for May 15, 1996.
Because Brannon had moved from New Orleans to Florida without
leaving a forwarding address, Brannon did not receive notice of the
claims bar date. Brannon apparently did not pursue this matter due
to a letter from his attorney, representing that he had until
October 26, 1995, to file a claim. Brannon concluded from this
letter that he had until October 26, 1996, in which to file a
claim. In August of 1996, Brannon’s new counsel filed his motion
for leave to file a late claim. The bankruptcy court denied the
motion and the district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s
ruling.
On appeal, the question is whether the bankruptcy court abused
its discretion when it concluded that Brannon’s failure to file a
timely claim was not excusable neglect. There are four equitable
factors to consider in resolving this issue: (1) prejudice to the
debtor, (2) the length and potential impact of delay on judicial
proceedings, (3) the reason for delay, and (4) whether the movant
acted in good faith. Pioneer Inv. Serv. v. Brunswick Assoc., 507
U.S. 380, 395 (1993).
The bankruptcy court concluded that, in this case, the delay
would prejudice HJC for two reasons. First, HJC had vacated the
casino premises without retaining evidence related to Brannon’s
claim. Second, because the reorganization plan calls for HJC to
pay 100% dividends to all general unsecured creditors, HJC could be
subjected to claims that were not anticipated by the reorganization
plan. The bankruptcy court also concluded that eight months
amounted to a significant delay. Finally, the bankruptcy court
found that Brannon had not advanced an acceptable reason for the
delay. Based on these factors, the bankruptcy court concluded that
Brannon’s delay was not excusable.
After careful review of the record and study of the briefs, we
conclude that the district court did not err in affirming the
bankruptcy court’s ruling.
A F F I R M E D.