UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
J. KATE STICKLES
JUDGE
824 NORTH MARKET STREET
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE
302-252-3820
March 6, 2026
VIA CM/ECF
Peter J. Keane, Esquire Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP
919 N. Market Street, 17th Floor P.O. Box 8705
Wilmington, DE 19899-8705 pkeane@pszjlaw.com
Brian J. McLaughlin, Esquire Offit Kurman, P.A.
222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1105 Wilmington, DE 19801
brian.mclaughlin@offitkurman.com Jason S. Pomerantz, Esquire Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP 1700 Broadway 36th Floor New York, NY 10019
jspomerantz@pszjlaw.com Paul J. Winterhalter, Esquire Offit Kurman, P.A.
2000 Market Street, Suite 2700 Philadelphia, PA 19103
pwinterhalter@offitkurman.com RE: 99 Cents Only Stores LLC, Post-Confirmation Debtor1 Case No. 24-10721 (JKS)2
Related to D.I. 283, 284, 297 and 324 Dear Counsel:
Before the Court is Catarina Cux Chan's motion3(the "Motion") seeking to reconsider, or alternatively, clarify this Court's Order Sustaining the 99 Cents Creditors' Liquidating Trust's Third Omnibus Objection (Non-Substantive) to Certain Claims (Late Filed Personal Injury
1
Page 2
Claims) (the "Order Disallowing Claims")4and Order Granting Motion of the 99 Cents Creditors' Liquidating Trust for Entry of an Order, Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§105(a) and 502(c), Authorizing (I) Fixing Certain Personal Injury Claims Pursuant to the Plan, and (II) Lifting the Plan Injunction to Allow Certain Personal Injury Claimants to Liquidate Claims (the "Procedures Order").5The Motion seeks reconsideration under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024.6Safety National Casualty Corporation ("Safety National")7opposes the Motion arguing that it is both legally and procedurally deficient and should be denied.8
For the reasons set forth herein, the Motion is denied.9
Order Disallowing Claims
The Order Disallowing Claims disallowed proof of claim 2227, asserted by Caterina Cux Chan ("Ms. Chan" or "Movant"), against Debtor 99 Cents Only Stores LLC, in the amount of $500,000, as late filed.
Movant seeks reconsideration of the Order Disallowing Claims based on the "excusable neglect" provision of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60.10Movant does not dispute receipt of the notice of claims bar date (the "Bar Date Notice" or "Notice"),11but argues that the Notice bearing the Numbers Holding, Inc. case caption, and not the 99 Cents Only Stores LLC ("99 Cents Stores")
Page 3
case caption, was deficient and attributed to the late filed claim. At the hearing on the Motion, counsel argued that Ms. Chan did not have adequate or reasonable due process to understand that the notice applied to her (who asserts an injury against 99 Cents Stores). The claims bar date is a "drop-dead date" absent excusable neglect.12The moving party
"bears a heavy burden" to establish that relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) is appropriate.13
"Whether a creditor received adequate notice of a bar date 'depends upon the facts and circumstances of a given case.'"14"[D]ue process requires notice that is 'reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.'"15As Judge Walsh explained in Grand Union Co., "the notice must be such that it would reasonably inform the interested parties that the matter is pending and would reasonably allow the parties to 'choose for [themselves] whether to appear or default, acquiesce or contest.'"16Absent reasonable notice of the bar date, a claimant
"is not bound by the legal effects of the confirmation of the plan and should be allowed to file a late proof of claim."17
Importantly, no evidence was presented in support of Movant's request for reconsideration. Neither Ms. Chan, nor the law firm that filed the untimely proof of claim on her behalf, provided any evidence to support the assertion that the Bar Date Notice was misleading and attributed to the late filed claim.18Also, Ms. Chan did not respond to the objection to her claim.19
Page 4
The Court finds that the Bar Date Notice, as well as the accompanying Proof of Claim form,20apprised recipients of the claims bar date, the name of each Debtor to which the bar date applied (including 99 Cents Stores), the significance of the bar date, and the consequences for not filing a timely claim. Specifically, the record reflects that:
The Bar Date Notice is consistent with the form of notice routinely approved in jointly administered chapter 11 cases in this district.
The Bar Date Notice contains the court-approved jointly administered case caption, including a footnote (which appears on the first page) identifying the six Debtors.21 The Bar Date Notice is directed "To: all holders of potential claims against the Debtors (as listed below)" and contains a chart that conspicuously identifies each Debtor, its case number, and the last 4 digits of its federal tax identification number. The Notice also explains that the bankruptcy cases are jointly administered. The Bar Date Notice contains a text box with bold text stating: "YOU ARE
RECEIVING THIS NOTICE BECAUSE YOU MAY HAVE OR YOU MAY
ASSERT A CLAIM AGAINST THE DEBTORS IN THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED
CHAPTER 11 CASES. THEREFORE, YOU SHOULD READ THIS NOTICE
CAREFULLY AND DISCUSS IT WITH YOUR ATTORNEY. IF YOU DO NOT
HAVE AN ATTORNEY, YOU MAY WISH TO CONSULT ONE."
The Bar Date Notice provides, among other things, the deadline and instructions for filing a claim, when and where to file a claim, and the consequences for failing to file a claim by the applicable bar date.22
Page 5
In addition, the Proof of Claim Form, which was served with the Notice of Bar Date, prominently lists, at the top of the form, the name of each Debtor, with the corresponding case number, and a box to check the appropriate Debtor against whom a claim is filed.23 The Court finds that the names of the Debtors are clearly and conspicuously identified and placed on the Bar Date Notice and Proof of Claim form. Notice was such that it reasonably informed interested parties that (i) the Debtors cases were pending and the name of each Debtor;
(ii) the deadline to file a claim; (iii) the deadline applied to each Debtor; and (iv) the consequences for failure to file a claim. Absent evidence to the contrary, the Court disagrees with the unsubstantiated argument that the Bar Date Notice was defective, misleading, ambiguous, or did not provide adequate or reasonable due process. No other grounds or evidence were set forth to support an excusable neglect finding for reconsideration.24Based on these facts, Movant has not met her heavy burden, and the request to reconsider disallowance of the claim is denied.
Procedures Order
Movant next requests reconsideration or clarification of the Procedures Order so that she can seek relief from the Plan Injunction to pursue a claim against the insurer for amounts above the SIR. Specifically, Movant wants to pursue a claim in state court against Safety National for the $200,000 surplus above the $300,000 SIR. Movant maintains she is not seeking anything against the Debtors' estates, which she cannot, because, as discussed above, she does not have a claim against the Debtors and their estates.
Safety National opposes reconsideration, arguing, in part, that Movant waived the right to seek reconsideration because she failed to oppose the relief sought in the initial Procedures Motion25or raise the issue at the hearing. The Court finds that Movant (care of counsel) was served with a copy of the Procedures Motion and proposed Procedures Order26and neither she,
Page 6
nor her counsel, opposed the relief sought in the motion or the proposed Procedures Order.27 Even if the Court finds that Ms. Chan did not abandon the argument, the Court finds the argument insufficient to merit reconsideration or clarification.
"A motion for reconsideration is not an appropriate vehicle to reargue issues that the court has already considered and decided."28A motion for reconsideration is allowed to
"correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence."29Here, the Motion fails to state any grounds or legal argument for reconsideration of the Procedures Order. Because no circumstances are presented for the Court's consideration, Movant has failed to meet her burden and the request to reconsider the Procedures Order is denied. The Court next considers Movant's request for clarification of the Procedures Order.
"The general purpose of a motion for clarification is to explain or clarify something ambiguous or vague, not to alter or amend. Requests to 'alter ... previous rulings' or to 'make findings of fact' are not proper bases for a motion for clarification."30
The Procedures Order (1) estimates personal injury claims, (2) sets up a process whereby claimants can assert a claim amount for estimation purposes, and (3) provides a process by which certain categories of claims can seek relief from the Plan Injunction. Movant argues it is unclear whether she, whose late claim was disallowed, is permitted to pursue the claim against available insurance —the amount above the self-insured retention or SIR.
Ms. Chan's claim was disallowed as late filed.31As a result, Movant does not have a claim against the Debtor's estate. Pursuant to the Procedures Order, "a Claimant shall be barred from moving to lift the Plan Injunction if … (iii) Claimant's Claim is disallowed in its entirety."
This provision requires no clarification. Simply stated, if a claim is disallowed, the party
Page 7
asserting the disallowed claim does not have a claim against the estate and is barred from lifting the Plan Injunction to proceed with litigation against the Debtors.
The Procedures Order, however, also incorporate Section IV.E of the Plan regarding
"Insurance Matters" and states, in part:
This Order is and shall be insurance neutral, neither modifying the coverage obligations of any Insurer (as defined in the Plan) or the Liquidating Trustee, if any, nor modifying or affecting any Claimant's rights, if any, under any Insurance Contract or applicable law. For the avoidance of doubt, all parties' rights, defenses, and arguments are reserved herein, specifically including under Section IV.E. of the Plan, in any Original Court Action.32 As set forth in the Order, any rights Movant has against the insurer are preserved and she is not precluded from pursuing the insurer in state court. The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over any state law contract claim Movant may have against the insurer above the SIR. That is a claim between two non-debtors involving state law.33 For the reasons set forth above, the Motion is denied, and an order will be issued. Very truly yours,
J. Kate Stickles
United States Bankruptcy Judge