ORDER (I) GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO PAY PLAN PAYMENTS COMBINED WITH BRIEF IN SUPPORT AND NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING [DOC. 130] AND (II) OVERRULING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEBTOR'S RESPONSE TO THE TRUSTEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS, AND REQUEST FOR COMPENSATION [DOC. 131]

SARAH A. HALL, Bankruptcy Judge.

Before the Court are:

1. Motion to Dismiss Case for Failure to Pay Plan Payments Combined with Brief in Support and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing [Doc. 130] (the "Motion") filed by John Hardeman, Chapter 13 Trustee (the "Trustee"), on May 3, 2016; and

2. Debtor's Response to the Trustee's Motion to Dismiss, and Request for Compensation [Doc. 131] (the "Response") filed by Debtor on May 6, 2016.

The Motion gave 14 days notice of opportunity for hearing and requests that the Court dismiss Debtor's case because he has not made required payments under his Plan. Debtor's counsel waited only three (3) days to file the Response. Therein, counsel explains that "Debtor has not yet contacted counsel to discuss options[,]" but when he does, counsel will take "appropriate action" on his behalf. Response, at 1. Given that counsel had until today, May 17, 2016, to take such appropriate action, the contents of the Response naturally beg the questions: (i) why file a non-substantive response right away; and (ii) why not wait to file a response until after conferring with Debtor.

Given that there is no reasonable answer to the Court's first question and the only answer to the second question is that counsel should have conferred with Debtor before filing the Response, the Court inescapably concludes that the Response amounts to a superficial effort to obtain a hearing on the matter, thereby delaying its disposition in the hopes of reaching a settlement other than on the merits. But, a request to delay disposition of proceedings should not masquerade as a response on the merits. If Debtor needed more than 14 days to respond to the Motion, he should have filed an application or motion for an extension of his response time. He did not. Moreover, he failed to reach the merits of the Motion, so the Court must grant the Motion and overrule the Response.

In addition to explaining that counsel has not spoken to Debtor and that appropriate action will be taken at an unspecified time, the Response also includes a request that the Court approve counsel's request for a $500.00 administrative claim consisting of counsel's fees incurred crafting the Response. The Court has thoroughly reviewed the Response. Counsel did not submit supporting time records, so the Court can only assume that counsel's request for $500.00 in compensation is based upon a fee of $100.00 per minute. Given counsel's failure to reach the merits of the Motion or otherwise provide any cognizable legal assistance to Debtor, the Court concludes that the Response's request for compensation must be denied.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS and DIRECTS as follows:

1. The Motion is GRANTED;

2. To the extent that the Response seeks denial of the Motion, it is OVERRULED; and

3. To the extent that the Response requests approval of attorney's fees as an administrative claim against the estate, it is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.