MEMORANDUM OPINION ON PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT

[Adv. Doc. No. 2]

JEFF BOHM, Bankruptcy Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

In the suit at bar, the Chapter 13 Debtors, Charles J. Ruth, III and Jennifer L. Ruth (the Plaintiffs) request this Court to disallow the proof of claim, specifically Claim No. 10, filed by Resurgent Capital Services and LVNV Funding, Inc. (the Defendants) and request affirmative relief in the form of sanctions for abuse of the proof of claim process and a damages award for vexatious litigation against the Defendants. [Adv. Doc. No. 2]. For the reasons set forth herein, all relief requested by the Plaintiffs is denied.

The Court makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52, as incorporated into Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7052, and Bankruptcy Rule 9014. To the extent that any Finding of Fact is construed to be a Conclusion of Law, it is adopted as such. To the extent that any Conclusion of Law is construed to be a Finding of Fact, it is adopted as such. The Court reserves the right to make any additional Findings and Conclusions as may be necessary or as requested by any party.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT

III. CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES

Three witnesses testified at trial: Johnie Patterson (Mr. Patterson), who is the attorney for the Plaintiffs and also their general bankruptcy counsel in their main Chapter 13 case. Additionally, the Plaintiffs themselves gave testimony. The Court finds that all three of these individuals are credible. However, the testimony given by the Plaintiffs was very brief and not particularly useful in assisting this Court to render a decision. Rather, it is Mr. Patterson's testimony which is material.

IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. Jurisdiction, Venue, and Constitutional Authority to Render a Final Judgment

The Court has jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(b) and 157(a). This particular dispute is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (B), and (O). Additionally, this proceeding is a core proceeding under the general "catch-all" language of 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2). See In re Southmark Corp., 163 F.3d 925, 930 (5th Cir.1999) ("[A] proceeding is core under section 157 if it invokes a substantive right provided by title 11 or if it is a proceeding that, by its nature, could arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case."); De Montaigu v. Ginther (In re Ginther Trusts), Adv. No. 06-3556, 2006 WL 3805670, at *19 (Bankr.S.D.Tex. Dec. 22, 2006) (holding that an "[a]dversary [proceeding is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) even though the laundry list of core proceedings under § 157(b)(2) does not specifically name this particular circumstance"). Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1409(1).

Having concluded that this Court has jurisdiction over this dispute, this Court nevertheless notes that Stern v. Marshall, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2594, 180 L.Ed.2d 475 (2011) sets forth certain limitations on the constitutional authority of bankruptcy courts to enter final orders. In Stern, the debtor filed a counterclaim against a creditor who had filed a proof of claim. The debtor's counterclaim was based solely on state law; there was no Bankruptcy Code provision undergirding the counterclaim. Id. at 2611. Moreover, the resolution of the counterclaim was not necessary to adjudicating the claim of the creditor. Id. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the bankruptcy court lacked constitutional authority to enter a final judgment on the debtor's counterclaim. Id. at 2620. In the dispute at bar, this Court concludes that it has constitutional authority to enter a final judgment in the dispute at bar for the reasons set forth below.

1. The Amended Complaint Seeks Relief Based on an Express Bankruptcy Statute and Bankruptcy Rules, Not on Any State Law.

In Stern, the suit between the debtor's estate and the creditor concerned solely state law issues. Id. at 2611. In the suit at bar, the Amended Complaint arises out of whether the Defendants properly filed Claim No. 10. The relief that the Plaintiffs seek is based upon Bankruptcy Code Section 502 — governing the claims allowance process — Bankruptcy Rule 3007, which governs objections to claims, and Bankruptcy Rule 3008, which governs reconsideration of claims. State law has no equivalent to this statute and these rules; they are purely creatures of the Bankruptcy Code. Accordingly, because the resolution of this dispute is based on express bankruptcy law, not state law, Stern is inapplicable, and this Court has the constitutional authority to enter a final judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(a) and (b)(1).

2. Resolution of This Dispute Necessarily Determines Whether Claim No. 10 Is an Allowed Claim.

As already stated, in Stern, the resolution of the counterclaim was not necessary to adjudicating the claim of the creditor. In the dispute at bar, however, the Plaintiffs have filed an objection to Claim No. 10, the resolution of which is necessary to adjudicating Claim No. 10. Indeed, the Plaintiffs' objection is expressly aimed at disallowing Claim No. 10. The resolution of this dispute therefore necessarily determines the validity of Claim No. 10, which was not true in Stern. For these reasons, this Court concludes that Stern has no application and that this Court has constitutional authority to enter a final judgment in this suit.

B. Analysis of the Plaintiffs' Objection to Claim No. 10

The Plaintiffs object to Claim No. 10 on two grounds. [Adv. Docket No. 2, p. 5-6]. First, the Plaintiffs assert that Claim No. 10 should be disallowed because it fails to meet Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 30015 standards. [Adv. Docket No. 2, p. 5]. Second, the Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants are "strangers" and that they (i.e. the Plaintiffs) do not and have never owed a debt to the Defendants. [Adv. Docket No. 2, p. 6].

The Defendants have responded to the Amended Complaint by requesting that this Court dismiss the objection to Claim No. 10. [Adv. Docket No. 11]. The Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs' objection is not timely. [Adv. Docket No. 11, p. 5]. Alternatively, the Defendants argue that even if the Plaintiffs' objection is timely, the Plaintiffs have failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that cause exists for this Court to reconsider Claim No. 10. [Adv. Docket No. 31, p. 7].

Given these arguments, this Court must first determine whether the Plaintiffs' objection to Claim No. 10 is timely. If it is untimely, then this suit must be dismissed.6 If the Court finds that the objection is not untimely, the Court must then decide whether there is cause to reconsider the allowance of Claim No. 10 pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(j).

1. Defendants' Argument That the Plaintiffs' Objection to Claim No. 10 Is Untimely Fails Because the Court May Reconsider the Allowance of a Claim at Any Time.

The Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs' objection to Claim No. 10 is untimely due to the language in Bankruptcy Local Rule 3021-1(c). Specifically, the Defendants point to the following language in this Local Rule to support their argument: "The deadline for filing objections to filed claims is 21 days after the proof of claim deadline. If no objection is filed by the deadline, the claim is an allowed claim and should be paid in accordance with the plan." (emphasis added). BLR 3021-1(c).

In the Plaintiffs' Chapter 13 case, under Local Bankruptcy Rule 3021-1(c), the deadline for filing an objection to the Defendants' proof of claim was on June 29, 2009. [Finding of Fact No. 4]. The Plaintiffs filed their objection on October 22, 2010, approximately sixteen months after the deadline calculated by Local Rule 3021-1(c). [Finding of Fact No. 7]. The Plaintiffs do not dispute that their objection to the Defendants' proof of claim was filed beyond the deadline pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 3021-1(c). [Adv. Docket No. 2]. Nonetheless, they argue that the Defendants' interpretation of Local Rule 3021-1(c) is erroneous. [Adv. Docket No. 25, p. 3]. This Court agrees. Contrary to the Defendants' arguments, Rule 3021-1(c) does not bar the Plaintiffs' objection. [Adv. Docket No. 25, p. 3]. In addition to the language in Rule 3021-1(c) cited above, Rule 3021-1(c) also expressly states that "Nothing in this rule precludes the reconsideration of the allowance of a claim pursuant to § 502(j) of the Bankruptcy Code." Importantly, § 502(j) does not place time restrictions on requests for the reconsideration of claims. Accordingly, this Court finds that the Plaintiffs' objection to Claim No. 10 is not barred due to untimeliness.7 Thus, this Court will now assess whether Claim No. 10 should be reconsidered for cause under 11 U.S.C. § 502(j) and Fed. R. Bankr.P. 3008.

2. Plaintiffs Have Failed to Establish Cause to Reconsider Claim No. 10, and therefore Claim No. 10 Remains an Allowed Claim.

Under § 502(j), a court may reconsider the allowance of a claim if the objecting party can show cause. Specifically, § 502(j) states that "[a] claim that has been allowed or disallowed may be reconsidered for cause. A reconsidered claim may be allowed or disallowed according to the equities of the case." The Fifth Circuit has held that bankruptcy courts may exercise "virtually plenary" discretion when deciding whether to reconsider a claim. Colley v. Nat'l Bank of Tex. (In re Colley), 814 F.2d 1008, 1010 (5th Cir.1987) (internal citations omitted).

However, the Fifth Circuit has held that courts should exercise caution when applying this expansive discretion. See Colley, 814 F.2d at 1010. It has urged bankruptcy courts not to allow parties to use § 502(j) as a means to rehash already litigated issues. See id. Specifically, the Fifth Circuit concluded in Colley:

Accordingly, Fifth Circuit precedent requires that bankruptcy courts apply Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)8 standards to the reconsideration of claims that have in fact been litigated — which impliedly means that Rule 60(b) standards do not apply if the parties have not in fact litigated the proof of claim. Id. Because § 502(j) also applies to claims that the parties have not in fact litigated, when a bankruptcy court is reconsidering a claim under these circumstances, Rule 60(b) standards do not apply. Id. Indeed, in applying Fifth Circuit law, this Court has already held that:

In re Jack Kline Co., 440 B.R. 712, 741 (Bankr.S.D.Tex.2010).

Therefore, after concluding that Rule 60(b) standards apply to previously litigated proofs of claim, this Court must now determine whether the merits of Claim No. 10 have in fact been previously litigated.

i. Claim No. 10 Was Not Previously Litigated by the Parties in This Case.

The Court finds that the merits of the Defendants' Claim No. 10 have not in fact been previously litigated. This Court has held that if no party objects to the allowance of a claim, then the merits of the claim will not be deemed litigated "until the conclusion of the case" — and the Plaintiffs' main Chapter 13 case is certainly not concluded, as the Plaintiffs are making payments under their confirmed plan.9 Id. Additionally, this Court has held that "[p]roofs of claims themselves are not final judgments giving rise to res judicata, but the bankruptcy court's allowance or disallowance of a proof of claim is a final judgment." In re Hence, No. 06-32451, 2007 WL 4333834, at *4, 2007 Bankr.LEXIS 4156, at *15 (Bankr.S.D.Tex. Dec. 5, 2007) (internal citation omitted).

In the dispute at bar, nothing in the record suggests that the merits of Claim No. 10 have ever been litigated. In fact, the Plaintiffs did not object to Claim No. 10 until after this claim became an allowed claim. [Findings of Fact Nos. 4, 6, & 7]. Accordingly, this Court concludes that Claim No. 10 has not in fact been litigated. Therefore, in this adversary proceeding, the Court is not required to apply the Rule 60(b) standards in reconsidering Claim No. 10. Instead, this Court may exercise its "virtually plenary" discretion and the equities of the case to determine whether Claim No. 10 should be reconsidered.

ii. The Plaintiffs Have Not Shown Cause to Reconsider Claim No. 10 Pursuant to § 502(j).

Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001(f) states that an allowed proof of claim is prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of a claim. See also 11 U.S.C. § 502(a). Therefore, the objecting party bears the burden of proof in establishing cause for reconsidering an allowed claim. See Jack Kline, 440 B.R. at 742 (holding that proof of claim should not be reconsidered because objecting party had not established that claim was inappropriate or fraudulent). The Court finds that the Plaintiffs, as the objecting parties, have not met the burden of proof necessary to overcome the presumptive validity of Claim No. 10.

The trial held on March 7, 2012 afforded the Plaintiffs the opportunity to adduce testimony and introduce exhibits to establish cause for reconsideration of Claim No. 10. The Plaintiffs, however, provided very little evidence to meet their burden. [See Finding of Fact No. 10]. At this hearing, the Plaintiffs' counsel, Mr. Patterson, gave testimony that he, unilaterally, decided to object to Claim No. 10 because he believes that this claim is unenforceable on its face. Mr. Patterson also testified that he objected because the Defendants were not the original creditors holding the debt in issue.10

Mr. Patterson, however, gave no sound reason as to why he waited so long to file the objection. He did not file this objection until October 22, 2010, [Finding of Fact No. 7], which is almost sixteen months after Claim No. 10 became an allowed claim under Local Bankruptcy Rule 3021-1(c), [Finding of Fact No. 4], and almost five months after Claim No. 10 became a "deemed allowed" claim under the Notice. [Finding of Fact No. 6]. For the Chapter 13 system to operate efficiently and effectively, the Chapter 13 trustee, and all creditors who have filed claims, need to know relatively soon what the universe of allowed claims will be so that the trustee can make the proper distributions to creditors once the plan is confirmed. Necessarily, therefore, once a claim is filed, Local Bankruptcy Rule 3021-1(c) reminds debtors to lodge objections; and once the trustee files the Notice, debtors (and, for that matter, any other creditors) are reminded to lodge objections. While § 502(j) does not impose any deadline for reconsideration of claims, there must be a sound reason for lodging an objection months later when the objection could have been lodged within the deadlines set forth in Local Bankruptcy Rule 3021-1(c) and the Notice. Mr. Patterson's reason — which is essentially that he did not file the objection for several months because he did not believe it was economically prudent, but then changed his mind — is not a sufficiently sound basis to establish cause for reconsideration of Claim No. 10. And, although "Section 502(j) allows reconsideration of the claim according to the equities of the case," In re Hernandez, 282 B.R. 200, 207 (Bankr. S.D.Tex.2002), the Plaintiffs have failed to provide any evidence demonstrating that there is an equitable basis for reconsideration of Claim No. 10. Accordingly, this Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to meet the burden of proof necessary to overcome Claim No. 10's presumptive validity. Therefore, this Court concludes that Claim No. 10 remains an allowed claim.

3. Sanctions Against the Defendants are not Appropriate Under Section 105 and this Court's Inherent Powers.

The Court has discretion under its inherent authority to examine the facts as established and "may impose sanctions against litigants or lawyers appearing before the court so long as the court makes a specific finding that they engaged in bad faith conduct." Knight v. Luedtke (In re Yorkshire, LLC), 540 F.3d 328, 332 (5th Cir.2008) (citing Elliott v. Tilton, 64 F.3d 213, 217 (5th Cir.1995)). The Plaintiffs seek sanctions because they assert that Claim No. 10 falls woefully short of satisfying the documentary requirements of Fed. R. Bankr.P. 3001. The Plaintiffs' argument presumably is that the Defendants' failure to comply constitutes bad faith conduct given the fact that this Court has previously taken the Defendants to task for failing to attach appropriate documentation to their proofs of claim. In re DePugh, 409 B.R. 84, 103 (Bankr.S.D.Tex. 2009).

There is no question that this Court has previously held that the Defendants' failure to comply with Bankruptcy Rule 3001 by attaching required documents and providing sufficient information constitutes "bad faith" because such failure is a "willful disregard of and a refusal to learn the facts when available and at hand." Id. (citing Citizens Bridge Co. v. Guerra, 152 Tex. 361, 258 S.W.2d 64, 69-70 (1953)). Indeed, several years ago, three bankruptcy judges for the Northern District of Texas issued a joint opinion in In re Armstrong explaining the sort of documentation that a claimant must produce in order to avail its claims of prima facie validity pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 3001(f). 320 B.R. 97, 103-06 (Bankr. N.D.Tex.2005). Holders of consumer claims, like the Defendants in this case, must provide "an account statement containing the debtor's name, account number, the prepetition account balance, interest rate, and a breakdown of the interest charges, finance charges and other fees that make up the balance of the debt, or attach enough monthly statements so that this information can be easily determined." Id. at 106;11 see also In re Relford, 323 B.R. 669, 674 (Bankr.S.D.Ind.2004) ("[A] credit card or consumer credit claim is based on both the credit card agreement and proof of the credit card's actual use. Accordingly, a claim for such debt must include the parties' credit agreement (and any amendments thereto), as well as evidence regarding the debtor's use of the credit card or consumer account."). Additionally, a claimant whose claims have been assigned — also like the Defendants in this case — must "document its ownership of the claim" and produce "a signed copy of the assignment and sufficient information to identify the original credit card account." Id. (quoting In re Hughes, 313 B.R. 205, 212 (Bankr.E.D.Mich.2004)).

Claim No. 10 falls short of compliance with these requirements because it is nothing more than a bare allegation that the Plaintiffs owe some amount of money based on "UNSECURED CHARGEOFF" with respect to an account ending in 6671. [See Finding of Fact No. 3]. It was incumbent on the Defendants to produce sufficient documentation supporting their claim. See In re Armstrong, 320 B.R. at 106. They have not done so, just as they did not do so in In re DePugh.12 409 B.R. 84 (Bankr.S.D.Tex.2009). Based on the Defendants' previous interactions with this Court concerning this same issue of bad faith in filing proofs of claim,13 they cannot argue their deficient filing of Claim No. 10 was an honest mistake. This Court has previously held this type of behavior to be in bad faith.

However, here, the Plaintiffs filed their objection to Claim No. 10 almost sixteen months after the twenty-one day deadline set forth in Local Bankruptcy Rule 3021-1(c). [See Finding of Fact Nos. 3, 4, 6, & 7]. Moreover, the objection was filed approximately five months after the deadline had passed pursuant to the Notice. [Finding of Fact Nos. 6 & 7]. This Court declines to impose sanctions given the significant delay in the Plaintiffs' filing of their objection to Claim No. 10.

Alternatively, even if this Court were to disregard the timing of the filing of the objection in its analysis, the Plaintiffs do not have standing to argue a pattern of behavior by the Defendants in cases other than their own. The Plaintiffs contend that the deficient Claim No. 10 filed by the Defendants is part of an ongoing business strategy constituting an "abuse of the system" that must be sanctioned. [Adv. Doc. No. 13]; see Fed. R. Bankr.P. 9011. The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants have a pattern of willful and intentional conduct, filing "hundreds, if not thousands" of inadequate claims in this Court. [See Finding of Fact No. 7]. The Plaintiffs ask this Court to "rely on the public record and its knowledge of the claims filed by the Defendants in the Southern District of Texas." [Adv. Doc. No. 13, ¶ 4(e) ]. The Plaintiffs acknowledge that they have not sought sanctions based upon the Defendants' filing of this the single claim (i.e. Claim No. 10) in their bankruptcy case; rather, they seek sanctions and disallowance of Claim No. 10 based upon the Defendants' improper filing of claims in not only the pending case, but many other cases. [Adv. Doc. No. 13, ¶ 4(a)].

In the context of standing, there is a "general prohibition on a litigant's raising another person's legal rights." Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984). To invoke this Court's jurisdiction, the Plaintiffs must have a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy, which is satisfied if they have suffered a "distinct and palpable injury"14 that is "fairly traceable to the challenged action, and relief from the injury must be `likely' to follow from a favorable decision." Allen, 468 U.S. at 751, 104 S.Ct. 3315. The Plaintiffs, however, do not specifically allege they are directly injured by the Defendants' conduct in this case, but attempt to obtain sanctions in this case based on alleged wrongs in other unrelated bankruptcy cases. This, they cannot do. Thus, the Plaintiffs lack standing to seek sanctions based on allegedly inadequate proofs of claim filed in other debtors' bankruptcy cases. Without standing, this Court does not have jurisdiction to determine this issue; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Stewart (In re Stewart), 647 F.3d 553, 557 (5th Cir.2011), and accordingly, this Court refuses to impose sanctions.

4. The Plaintiffs' Vexatious Litigation Claim Also Fails.

The United States Supreme Court has held that federal courts possess the inherent power to police the conduct of the attorneys and parties who appear in the federal courts. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991). Courts may also use these powers to assess fees against parties who pursue vexatious litigation. Id. However, Fifth Circuit precedent states that a court must use its powers to sanction narrowly to only address a particular misconduct. See Topalian v. Ehrman, 3 F.3d 931, 936 (5th Cir.1993). Furthermore, the Fifth Circuit has defined vexatious litigation as conduct that evidences "bad faith, motive, or reckless disregard of the duty owed to the courts." Edwards v. Gen. Motors Corp., 153 F.3d 242, 246 (5th Cir. 1998). At least one bankruptcy judge in this District, the Honorable Letitia Z. Paul, has characterized vexatious litigation as conduct that leads to increased costs for the opposing party and multiplicity in litigation. In re Rollings, No. 04-31511, 2008 WL 899300 at *9, 2008 Bankr.LEXIS 993 at *25 (Bankr.S.D.Tex. Mar. 31, 2008).

In Rollings, Judge Paul found that the respondents' conduct was vexatious because their continued requests for discovery and filing of baseless motions resulted in increased litigation and costs to the debtor. Id. In Rollings, the debtor filed a Chapter 13 case and subsequently converted the case to a Chapter 7 case. Id. at *1-2, 2008 Bankr.LEXIS 993 at *3. The respondents then filed a complaint to determine dischargeability. Id. Additionally, the discovery request included nine extensive interrogatories and thirty-six different requests for production. Id. Judge Paul rejected the respondents' explanation that their extensive discovery tactics were employed only to obtain information from the debtor. Accordingly, Judge Paul held that respondents misused the discovery process to harass the debtor that resulted in "increasing costs and multiplying ... litigation before this court." Id. at *5, 2008 Bankr.LEXIS 993 at *4.

In the dispute at bar, the Plaintiffs' vexatious litigation claims fails for various reasons. Unlike the debtor in Rollings, who was subjected to extensive litigation costs, the Plaintiffs have not provided evidence of any multiplicity of litigation or costs in their case. [Adv. Docket No. 2]. Instead, virtually all of the Plaintiffs' vexatious litigation claims are founded on the Defendants' conduct in other cases. [Adv. Docket No. 2, p. 9-10]. As discussed in the previous section concerning sanctions, the Plaintiffs are not parties in these other cases, and therefore do not have standing to seek relief for the Defendants' alleged misconduct in those cases.

Finally, the Plaintiffs challenge only one claim against the estate: Claim No. 10. The filing of this claim has not led to extensive examinations or any court filings outside of the normal litigation process. Indeed, the Plaintiffs have not provided sufficient evidence to support a finding of multiplicity in litigation or that the Defendants filed Claim No. 10 to increase costs to the Plaintiffs. In sum, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have not provided sufficient evidence to support their assertion of vexatious litigation by the Defendants. Accordingly, the relief requested by the Plaintiffs will be denied.

V. CONCLUSION

Creditors should not be permitted to deliberately file woefully deficient proofs of claim in the hope that the debtor will not object to their violations of Bankruptcy Rule 3001. See, e.g., In re DePugh, 409 B.R. at 104 (concluding the defendant's "utter disregard for Bankruptcy Rule 3001's requirements when filing its original proofs of claim amounts to bad faith."); In re Gilbreath, 395 B.R. 356, 367 (Bankr. S.D.Tex.2008) (disallowing proofs of claim amendments due to the delayed attempts to amend well after the hearing on the debtor's objections combined with the "blatant disregard for Bankruptcy Rule 3001"); In re Today's Destiny, Inc., No. 05-90080, 2008 WL 5479109, at *5-7 (Bankr.S.D.Tex. Nov. 26, 2008) (distinguishing three proofs of claim categories: (1) allowing proofs of claim that fully complied with Rule 3001, (2) allowing those that substantially complied with 3001, but (3) disallowing those claims that failed to comply with 3001 — i.e. provided no supporting documentation — such that the debtor could not evaluate the validity of the claim); see also Caplan v. B-Line, LLC (In re Kirkland), 572 F.3d 838, 841 (10th Cir.2009) (affirming the disallowance of a claim because the creditor failed to produce a single document to support its claim and failed to explain its failure to attach supporting documentation).

While this Court has already taken the Defendants to task for such failures in a prior case, DePugh, 409 B.R. at 104, it is still incumbent on all debtors (including the Plaintiffs here) to timely file objections to proofs of claim pursuant to the Local Rules and notices sent by the trustee as to which claims he believes are allowed claims that merit payment. Here, the Plaintiffs failed to timely file their objection to Claim No. 10. The Plaintiffs' objection to Claim No. 10, therefore, should be denied. Additionally, due to the delayed objection well beyond the deadlines of Local Rule 3021-1(c) and the Notice, plus the Plaintiffs' lack of standing to assert that the Defendants have filed inadequate proofs of claim in other bankruptcy cases, this Court will not impose sanctions.

A decision not to sanction the Defendants or award damages for vexatious litigation, however, does not imply that their conduct has been entirely appropriate. Indeed, this Court is very discouraged by the Defendants' continued failure to attach all documents evidencing that they are the present owners of the debt or, alternatively, to attach an explanation as to why not all of the documents can be attached. That is, after all, what Bankruptcy Rule 3001(c)(1) and the proof of claim form (i.e. Form 10) require. Moreover, this Court is discouraged by the Defendants' failure to provide a breakdown of the interest charges and other fees that comprise the debt figure set forth in Claim No. 10 — information which is now required by Bankruptcy Rule 3001(c)(2)(A). The Court hopes that this Opinion will encourage the Defendants to fully comply with Rule 3001 in the future. The Court also trusts that debtors will timely object to those proofs of claim that they believe fail to comply with Bankruptcy Rule 3001.

A judgment consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be entered on the docket simultaneously with the entry on the docket of this Memorandum Opinion.