IN RE PREMIER PEST MANAGEMENT INC., 15-54531. (2015)
Court: United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: inbco20151014701
Visitors: 9
Filed: Oct. 14, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 14, 2015
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEBTOR'S MOTION TO EXTEND THE AUTOMATIC STAY, AS UNNECESSARY THOMAS J. TUCKER , Bankruptcy Judge . This case is before the Court on the Debtor's motion to extend the automatic stay, filed October 8, 2015 (Docket # 9, the "Motion"). The Court will deny the Motion because it is unnecessary. This is so because 11 U.S.C. 362(c)(3) applies only to a debtor who is an "individual" — i.e., a human being. It does not apply to a debtor that is an entity, like the Debtor in this case
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEBTOR'S MOTION TO EXTEND THE AUTOMATIC STAY, AS UNNECESSARY THOMAS J. TUCKER , Bankruptcy Judge . This case is before the Court on the Debtor's motion to extend the automatic stay, filed October 8, 2015 (Docket # 9, the "Motion"). The Court will deny the Motion because it is unnecessary. This is so because 11 U.S.C. 362(c)(3) applies only to a debtor who is an "individual" — i.e., a human being. It does not apply to a debtor that is an entity, like the Debtor in this case ..
More
ORDER DENYING DEBTOR'S MOTION TO EXTEND THE AUTOMATIC STAY, AS UNNECESSARY
THOMAS J. TUCKER, Bankruptcy Judge.
This case is before the Court on the Debtor's motion to extend the automatic stay, filed October 8, 2015 (Docket # 9, the "Motion"). The Court will deny the Motion because it is unnecessary. This is so because 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3) applies only to a debtor who is an "individual" — i.e., a human being. It does not apply to a debtor that is an entity, like the Debtor in this case (which is a corporation).
In this case, therefore, the automatic stay will not terminate in any respect in this case under 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(A). Thus, the Motion is not necessary.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion (Docket # 9) is denied, as unnecessary.
Source: Leagle
