USCA11 Case: 21-10456 Document: 81-1 Date Filed: 08/11/2025 Page: 1 of 22

[PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-10456 ____________________

TL90108 LLC, Petitioner-Appellant, versus JOSEPH LOUIS FORD, III,

Respondent-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 19-10309-EPK ____________________

Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. USCA11 Case: 21-10456 Document: 81-1 Date Filed: 08/11/2025 Page: 2 of 22

2 Opinion of the Court 21-10456

JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judge: This appeal raises the question whether equitable tolling ap- plies to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4007(c)’s deadline for a creditor to object, through the filing of a complaint under 11 U.S.C. § 523(c), to the discharge of a debt on the basis that the debt was fraudulently obtained. A previous panel of our court con- cluded in a published opinion that the answer is “no.” See In re Al- ton, 837 F.2d 457 (11th Cir. 1988). Our Court’s prior-panel-prece- dent rule requires us to reach the same result here unless Alton has been undermined to the point of abrogation by the United States Supreme Court’s later decisions in Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (2004), and Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010). Appellee Joseph Ford sought to discharge his debts by filing a bankruptcy petition. After the Rule 4007(c) deadline for objecting expired, appellant TL90108 LLC (“TL”) moved for leave to file a § 523(c) complaint seeking a ruling that Ford’s debt to TL could not be discharged because Ford obtained the debt by fraud. The bank- ruptcy court denied TL’s motion after concluding that its com- plaint was untimely and Alton foreclosed the possibility of equitable tolling. On appeal, TL argues that the bankruptcy court erred in denying its motion. It says that the bankruptcy court should have found Alton no longer controlling and concluded that TL was enti- tled to equitable tolling based on Ford’s fraud. TL also argues that its due process rights were violated because it received inadequate notice about Ford’s bankruptcy before the filing deadline expired. USCA11 Case: 21-10456 Document: 81-1 Date Filed: 08/11/2025 Page: 3 of 22

21-10456 Opinion of the Court 3

After careful review, and with the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that Alton remains controlling precedent. Although some of Alton’s reasoning is inconsistent with Kontrick and Holland, under our strict prior-panel-precedent rule the case has not been so undermined that we need not follow it. Alton thus compels us to conclude that Rule 4007(c)’s deadline may not be tolled based on equitable considerations. Alton also requires us to reject TL’s due process challenge. We thus affirm the bankruptcy court’s order denying TL’s motion to extend the time to file its § 523(c) com- plaint. I. BACKGROUND According to Ford, a rare vehicle belonging to a Wisconsin man was stolen from the man’s Milwaukee garage and shipped to Europe in 2001. While the vehicle was missing, Richard Mueller inherited ownership of the vehicle from the man, who died in 2005. Mueller then sold part of his interest in the vehicle to Ford. Around ten years later, TL purchased the missing vehicle from a third party in an overseas transaction. When TL tried to register the vehicle in the United States, Wisconsin authorities notified Ford and Mueller as the owners of record. Since then, years of litigation involving TL, Ford, and Mueller have followed. Some two years after receiving notice of the sale, Ford and Mueller sued TL in Wisconsin state court, seek- ing a declaratory judgment that they were the rightful owners of the vehicle and a writ of replevin that would allow them to repos- sess it from TL. Later that year, the Wisconsin trial court dismissed USCA11 Case: 21-10456 Document: 81-1 Date Filed: 08/11/2025 Page: 4 of 22

4 Opinion of the Court 21-10456

Ford and Mueller’s complaint with prejudice on statute-of-repose grounds. Because of the dismissal, the parties conducted no discov- ery. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal of Ford and Mueller’s action. The Wisconsin Supreme Court then granted discretionary review of the reversal. In January 2019, while the Wisconsin Supreme Court was considering the appeal, Ford filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Shortly after filing, he submitted schedules listing his assets and li- abilities. He failed to identify TL as a creditor or list any debt asso- ciated with the vehicle. He did, however, list as a pending legal ac- tion the lawsuit against TL seeking to recover possession of the ve- hicle. Ford did not provide TL with formal notice of the creditors’ meeting in his bankruptcy case or alert it to any creditor filing dead- lines. About a month after filing for bankruptcy, Ford filed a “Sug- gestion of Bankruptcy” with the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which then notified TL of the bankruptcy proceeding. Doc. 467 at 4. 1 The Wisconsin Supreme Court stayed its consideration of the appeal due to Ford’s bankruptcy filing. In the bankruptcy proceeding, the court set an April 2019 deadline for any creditor to file a 11 U.S.C. § 523(c) complaint seek- ing a determination that a debt was not dischargeable. This dead- line came from Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4007(c),

1 “Doc.” refers to the bankruptcy court’s docket entries. USCA11 Case: 21-10456 Document: 81-1 Date Filed: 08/11/2025 Page: 5 of 22

21-10456 Opinion of the Court 5

which says that “a complaint to determine whether a debt is dis- chargeable under § 523(c) must be filed within 60 days after the first date set for the § 341(a) meeting of creditors.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4007(c). TL failed to file a § 523(c) complaint before this dead- line. The Wisconsin Supreme Court eventually proceeded with the appeal of the replevin action’s dismissal. The Court agreed with the Wisconsin Court of Appeals that the trial court erred when it dismissed the action on statute-of-repose grounds. After the case was remanded to the trial court, the parties began conducting dis- covery. TL learned in discovery that Ford had conspired with the person who stole the vehicle to sell it to TL and then recover it in a replevin action. Based on this information, TL filed in the Wis- consin action counterclaims against Ford for conspiracy to defraud and unjust enrichment. After learning about the fraud, TL tried to assert that its claim against Ford should not be discharged in his bankruptcy pro- ceeding. In September 2020, it moved in the bankruptcy court for an order extending the deadline to file a § 523(c) complaint and rul- ing that its claim against Ford was exempt from discharge. In sup- port of its motion, TL explained that it had just learned through discovery in the state court action information that would support a fraud claim against Ford. TL acknowledged the April 2019 dead- line for filing a § 523(c) complaint. But it argued that it could not possibly have obtained the information supporting its fraud USCA11 Case: 21-10456 Document: 81-1 Date Filed: 08/11/2025 Page: 6 of 22

6 Opinion of the Court 21-10456

complaint before the deadline because discovery had not yet begun in the Wisconsin action. TL urged the bankruptcy court to extend Rule 4007(c)’s deadline for filing a § 523(c) complaint based on eq- uitable tolling. It also argued that the deadline should not apply be- cause it received inadequate notice of the filing deadline to com- port with due process. Ford opposed TL’s motion. It argued that TL was barred from filing a § 523(c) complaint after the Rule 4007(c) deadline had passed based on the plain language of the rule and our precedent in Alton. TL replied that Alton’s holding that equitable tolling did not apply was abrogated by the Supreme Court’s decision in Kon- trick, 540 U.S. at 447. After a hearing, the bankruptcy court denied TL’s motion to extend the time to file a § 523(c) complaint. 2 The court explained that under Alton it had no discretion to extend Rule 4007(c)’s dead- line after the deadline had passed because equitable tolling of this deadline was unavailable. In reaching this conclusion, the court ruled that Kontrick had not abrogated Alton. The bankruptcy court did not address TL’s due process argument. This is TL’s appeal. 3

2 Even though it was too late to file a § 523(c) complaint, the bankruptcy court

granted TL’s request for relief from the stay and permitted it to file a proof of claim. 3 The bankruptcy court certified its order for direct appeal to this Court, ex-

plaining that there was “continuing disagreement among bankruptcy courts” USCA11 Case: 21-10456 Document: 81-1 Date Filed: 08/11/2025 Page: 7 of 22

21-10456 Opinion of the Court 7

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review de novo a bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law. In re Int’l Admin. Servs., Inc., 408 F.3d 689, 698 (11th Cir. 2005). III. DISCUSSION On appeal, TL protests the bankruptcy court’s order deny- ing its motion to extend the deadline to file a complaint challenging the dischargeability of Ford’s debt. It argues that the bankruptcy court should have ruled that (1) the deadline could be equitably tolled or (2) the deadline could not be enforced because TL had re- ceived inadequate notice of the deadline to satisfy due process. We first address the equitable tolling issue and then turn to TL’s due process challenge. A. The Bankruptcy Court Correctly Determined that Rule 4007(c)’s Filing Deadline May Not be Equitably Tolled. This issue requires us to consider whether equitable tolling may be applied to the filing deadline Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4007(c) imposes on creditors who seek to except fraud- ulently obtained debts from discharge. We previously held in a published opinion that Rule 4007(c)’s deadline may not be equita- bly tolled. See Alton, 837 F.2d at 458. TL argues that Alton does not

about whether equitable tolling was available under Rule 4007. Doc. 576 at 4. We granted TL permission to appeal directly to this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2)(A) (permitting a court of appeals to authorize a direct appeal of a bankruptcy court order that “involves a question of law requiring resolution of conflicting decisions”). USCA11 Case: 21-10456 Document: 81-1 Date Filed: 08/11/2025 Page: 8 of 22

8 Opinion of the Court 21-10456

bind us because it was abrogated by the Supreme Court’s decisions in Kontrick, 540 U.S. at 447, and Holland, 560 U.S. at 634. We reject TL’s argument. As we explain in this section, Alton remains binding precedent. We therefore reject TL’s equitable tolling argument. We begin with a brief review of the pertinent bankruptcy framework. When a Chapter 11 debtor files a bankruptcy petition, most of his pre-petition debts ordinarily are discharged, giving the debtor a fresh start. See 11 U.S.C. § 1141(d)(1) (providing that a debtor is generally relieved from any debt that arose before the date of plan confirmation); see also Truck Ins. Exch. v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., 602 U.S. 268, 272 (2024) (“Bankruptcy offers individuals and businesses in financial distress a fresh start to reorganize, discharge their debts, and maximize the property available to creditors.”). But not all. Some debts may be excepted from discharge. The debts that are not discharged include debts obtained by “false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud.” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). A debt obtained by fraud will not be discharged if (1) the creditor files a request or complaint seeking an exception to discharge, and (2) following “notice and a hearing” the bankruptcy court finds cause to except the debt from discharge. Id. § 523(c)(1). The Bankruptcy Rules dictate when a § 523(c) complaint may be filed. A creditor must file a complaint under § 523(c) “within 60 days after the first date set for the § 341(a) meeting of creditors.” Fed R. Bankr. P. 4007(c). This deadline is also known as the bar date. The bar date can be extended for cause “[o]n a party in interest’s motion filed before the time expires . . . after notice USCA11 Case: 21-10456 Document: 81-1 Date Filed: 08/11/2025 Page: 9 of 22

21-10456 Opinion of the Court 9

and a hearing.” Id. Another bankruptcy rule limits the court’s au- thority to extend the time to file a § 523(c) complaint, however. Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9006(b)(3) says that “[t]he court may extend the time to . . . act under Rule[] . . . 4007(c) . . . but only as permitted by [Rule 4007(c)]”. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006(b)(3). 4 In Rule 4007(c), the only express permission for an extension is that the motion to extend must be filed before the bar date. The rule makes no mention of equitable doctrines or other tolling mechanisms. We considered in Alton when, if ever, the Rule 4007(c) dead- line to file a § 523(c) complaint may be extended. See 837 F.2d at 458. Alton arose from creditor Bronson Byrd’s suit to recover money that the defendant, William Alton, allegedly took by fraud. Id. After Byrd filed suit, Alton filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy peti- tion and sent notice of the bankruptcy proceeding to Byrd, who acknowledged receipt. Id. Alton did not list Byrd as a creditor on his bankruptcy petition, though. Id. As a result, Byrd received no

4 Rules 4007(c) and 9006(b)(3) were amended after the district court denied

TL’s motion to extend the time to file a § 523(c) complaint, but the amend- ments made only stylistic changes. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4007 advisory com- mittee’s note to 2024 amendment (explaining that the rule’s language “has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Bankruptcy Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only”); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006 advisory committee’s note to 2024 amendment (providing the same explanation except for substantive changes that are inapplicable here). In this opinion, we quote the post-amendment language of the rules currently in effect. USCA11 Case: 21-10456 Document: 81-1 Date Filed: 08/11/2025 Page: 10 of 22

10 Opinion of the Court 21-10456

notice of the date set for the creditors’ meeting or “the last day to file complaints regarding dischargeability of debts”—the Rule 4007(c) bar date. Id. After the bar date passed, Byrd filed a motion to extend the time to file a § 523(c) complaint objecting to the debt’s dischargea- bility. Id. The bankruptcy court denied Byrd’s motion because it was filed too late. Id. The bankruptcy court reasoned that Byrd had received timely notice of the Chapter 11 proceeding “and therefore had a duty to inform himself about hearing dates and bar dates.” Id. After the district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision, Byrd appealed. Id. On appeal, Byrd argued that his motion to extend the bar date should have been granted on equitable grounds because “it was [the] debtor’s own conduct [in failing to list Byrd as a creditor] that caused [him] to miss the filing deadline.” Id. We rejected this argument. Id. Although we were “troubled” by Alton’s failure to list Byrd as a creditor in his bankruptcy petition, which deprived Byrd of court-issued notices of upcoming bankruptcy events and deadlines, we explained that Alton’s mailing of notice of the bank- ruptcy proceeding to Byrd “put Byrd on actual notice” of the pro- ceeding. Id. at 458–59 (emphasis omitted). This actual notice “de- prived Byrd of making any later claim of nondischargeability of his claim on the ground of lack of knowledge.” Id. at 459. We acknowledged that denying Byrd an extension of time to file a § 523(c) complaint was a “harsh” result. Id. Byrd may have expected to receive notices of bankruptcy-proceeding events, USCA11 Case: 21-10456 Document: 81-1 Date Filed: 08/11/2025 Page: 11 of 22

21-10456 Opinion of the Court 11

including the creditors’ meeting and the bar date to file a § 523(c) complaint. Id. Still, we reasoned that “the time specifications set out in the Bankruptcy Code are sufficiently clear to have placed an obligation on creditor Byrd to follow the case and to take the timely action necessary to pursue his claim.” Id. Indeed, Rule 4007(c) re- quired “any motion to extend the time period for filing a [§ 523(c)] complaint must be made before the running of that period.” Id. (em- phasis in original). Thus, we concluded, “[i]t [wa]s not our place to change” the rule because the filing deadline for such a motion was “clear.” Id. At the start, we conclude that if Alton has not been abro- gated, it forecloses TL’s argument that Rule 4007(c)’s deadline to file a § 523(c) complaint may be equitably tolled. We said unequiv- ocally in Alton that “we reject[ed] Byrd’s equities argument” that Rule 4007(c)’s deadline should be extended. Id. at 458. We ex- plained that even intentionally misleading actions by a debtor can- not negate a creditor’s obligation to timely file a § 523(c) complaint or extension motion before the bar date. See id. at 459. Our prior- panel-precedent rule dictates that “a prior panel’s holding is bind- ing on all subsequent panels unless and until it is overruled or un- dermined to the point of abrogation by the Supreme Court or by this Court sitting en banc.” United States v. Armstrong, 122 F.4th 1278, 1288 (11th Cir. 2024) (alteration adopted) (emphasis omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, our prior-panel- USCA11 Case: 21-10456 Document: 81-1 Date Filed: 08/11/2025 Page: 12 of 22

12 Opinion of the Court 21-10456

precedent rule would require us to reject TL’s equitable tolling ar- gument if Alton remains good law.5 TL argues on appeal that Alton does not foreclose its equita- ble tolling argument because the decision has been undermined to the point of abrogation by the Supreme Court’s subsequent deci- sions in Kontrick, 540 U.S. at 447, and Holland, 560 U.S. at 634. We address these decisions next. In Kontrick, the Supreme Court examined Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4004. 540 U.S. at 446. Like Rule 4007, Rule 4004 imposes deadlines for certain bankruptcy filings.6 Id. At issue in Kontrick was whether a debtor could raise Rule 4004 as a defense at any point in the bankruptcy proceeding—because it was a jurisdictional rule—or whether it instead could be forfeited 7 if not

5 The Supreme Court appears to agree that Alton held equitable doctrines to

be inapplicable to Rule 4007(c). See Kontrick, 540 U.S. at 457 n.11 (describing Alton as having held that “Rule 4007(c) confers no discretion to grant an un- timely motion to extend the time to object” and contrasting Alton with other circuits’ decisions concluding that Rule 4007(c) allows for equitable excep- tions). 6 In Kontrick, the Supreme Court explained that Rule 4007(c) “tracks Rules 4004(a) and (b)” and noted that “courts have considered decisions con- struing Rule 4007(c) in determining whether the time limits delineated in Rules 4004(a) and (b) may be forfeited.” 540 U.S. at 448 n.3. 7 As the Supreme Court noted, the issue in Kontrick “is more accurately de-

scribed as one of forfeiture rather than waiver.” Kontrick, 540 U.S. at 458 n.13 (internal quotation marks omitted). “Although jurists often use the words in- terchangeably, forfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right[,] USCA11 Case: 21-10456 Document: 81-1 Date Filed: 08/11/2025 Page: 13 of 22

21-10456 Opinion of the Court 13

timely raised—because it was a nonjurisdictional claim-processing rule. See id. at 447. The Supreme Court held that Rule 4004 was a nonjurisdictional claim-processing rule and the debtor had for- feited the rule’s protection by waiting too long to raise it. Id. at 456– 60. Although the Court concluded that Rule 4004 was a nonjuris- dictional claim-processing rule, it stopped short of deciding whether Rule 4004’s time limits were subject to equitable tolling. See id. at 457 (declining to address whether Rule 4004 is subject to equitable tolling because Kontrick “involve[d] no issue of equitable tolling or any other equity-based exception”). Both parties acknowledge that Kontrick left open this question. After Kontrick, the Court considered, in Holland, 560 U.S. at 645, whether the nonjurisdictional statute of limitations in the An- titerrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) may be eq- uitably tolled. The Court concluded that “a nonjurisdictional fed- eral statute of limitations is normally subject to a rebuttable pre- sumption in favor of equitable tolling.” Id. at 645–46 (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, based on the combination of Kontrick and Holland, the limitations period in Rule 4004—closely related to Rule 4007—is presumably subject to equitable tolling. TL contends that “Kontrick eliminated the core basis for Al- ton by establishing that Rule 4007(c) is not jurisdictional.” Reply Br. 15. It argues that Rule 4007(c) instead establishes a “non-

[while] waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right[] . . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). USCA11 Case: 21-10456 Document: 81-1 Date Filed: 08/11/2025 Page: 14 of 22

14 Opinion of the Court 21-10456

jurisdictional claim-processing” rule. Id. at 16. It urges us to con- clude, based on a “a rebuttable presumption in favor of equitable tolling,” that this deadline is subject to equitable tolling. Id. (altera- tion adopted) (emphasis in original) (quoting Holland, 560 U.S. at 645–46)). Taken together, TL argues that Kontrick and Holland “have removed Alton’s doctrinal underpinning to the point of abro- gation, leaving behind the presumption in favor of equitable toll- ing.” Id. To begin with, we agree with TL that Rule 4007(c) is a non- jurisdictional claim-processing rule rather than a jurisdictional re- quirement. As we explained above, the Supreme Court concluded in Kontrick that Rule 4004 is a nonjurisdictional claim-processing rule. See 540 U.S. at 454 (explaining that Rule 4004’s filing deadline is a “claim-processing rule[] that do[es] not delineate what cases bankruptcy courts are competent to adjudicate”). In reaching this conclusion, the Court explained that “[i]t is axiomatic” that the bankruptcy rules pertaining to objections to discharge “do not cre- ate or withdraw federal jurisdiction.” Id. at 453 (quoting Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 370 (1978)). Further, the Court also looked to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Proce- dure 9030, which provides that “the Bankruptcy Rules ‘shall not be construed to extend or limit the jurisdiction of the courts.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9030). As a bankruptcy rule pertaining to objections to discharge, Rule 4007(c) is a near-perfect match to the Supreme Court’s reasoning. And any doubt that Rule 4007(c) is a nonjurisdictional claim-processing rule like Rule 4004 is erased by the Supreme Court’s explanation that “Rule 4007(c) tracks USCA11 Case: 21-10456 Document: 81-1 Date Filed: 08/11/2025 Page: 15 of 22

21-10456 Opinion of the Court 15

Rules 4004(a) and (b)” and courts have treated the rules similarly “[b]ecause of the practical identity of the [rules’] time prescrip- tions.” Id. at 448 n.3. 8 We now turn to whether Alton remains binding precedent or has been “undermined to the point of abrogation by the Su- preme Court.” Armstrong, 122 F.4th at 1288 (internal quotation marks omitted). “For a Supreme Court decision to undermine panel precedent to the point of abrogation, the decision must be clearly on point and clearly contrary” to our earlier decision. Ed- wards v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 97 F.4th 725, 743 (11th Cir. 2024) (emphasis omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). If the Supreme Court “never discussed our precedent and did not otherwise comment on the precise issue before the prior panel, our precedent remains binding.” Jennings v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 108 F.4th 1299, 1304 (11th Cir. 2024) (alteration adopted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, the Supreme Court decision “must demolish and eviscerate each of [our decision’s] fundamental props.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). An intervening decision that “merely weakens the holding of an earlier panel is not sufficient to abrogate that holding.” Id. (alteration adopted) (internal quotation marks

8 Our earlier conclusion in In re Coggin, 30 F.3d 1443, 1450–51 (11th Cir. 1994),

that Rule 4004 was jurisdictional was expressly rejected by the Supreme Court in Kontrick. See Kontrick, 540 U.S. at 452 n.6. Thus, we are not bound by Coggin. See Edwards v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 97 F.4th 725, 743 (11th Cir. 2024) (explaining that an intervening Supreme Court decision abrogates panel precedent when it is “clearly on point and clearly contrary to the panel precedent” (emphasis omit- ted) (internal quotation marks omitted)). USCA11 Case: 21-10456 Document: 81-1 Date Filed: 08/11/2025 Page: 16 of 22

16 Opinion of the Court 21-10456

omitted). Put another way, “[e]ven if the reasoning of an interven- ing high court decision is at odds with a prior appellate court deci- sion, that does not provide the appellate court with a basis from departing from its prior decision.” Id. at 1305 (internal quotation marks omitted). So long as our precedent’s holding retains at least “one valid basis or rationale,” it remains binding. Del Castillo v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Health, 26 F.4th 1214, 1223 (11th Cir. 2022). We begin with whether Kontrick and Holland are “clearly on point and clearly contrary” to Alton. Edwards, 97 F.4th at 743 (em- phasis omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). They are not. First off, Kontrick expressly declined to reach the question whether Rule 4004 can be equitably tolled. See 540 U.S. at 457 (“Whether [Rule 4004], despite [its] strict limitations, could be softened on eq- uitable grounds is . . . a question we do not reach.” (footnote omit- ted)). Thus, even though the Court’s interpretation of Rule 4004 in Kontrick controls our interpretation of Rule 4007 here, nothing in the decision tells us whether Rule 4007 can be equitably tolled. And Holland addressed a different question: equitable tolling’s applica- bility to AEDPA—not the Bankruptcy Rules. Nor has the Supreme Court “discussed” Alton or “com- ment[ed] on the precise issue before” us in Alton. Jennings, 108 F.4th at 1304 (internal quotation marks omitted). Even though the Court mentioned Alton and the equitable tolling issue in Kontrick, it did so to illustrate that the circuits have disagreed over the applicability of equitable tolling in the Rule 4007 context. See Kontrick, 540 U.S. at 457 n.11 (citing Alton and other circuits’ related decisions to USCA11 Case: 21-10456 Document: 81-1 Date Filed: 08/11/2025 Page: 17 of 22

21-10456 Opinion of the Court 17

illustrate that “[l]ower courts have divided on the question whether Bankruptcy Rules 4004 and 4007(c) allow equitable excep- tions”). The Supreme Court’s characterization of the issue in Alton as an open question is far from enough to abrogate our precedent. Turning to whether the later Supreme Court decisions “de- molish and eviscerate each of [Alton’s] fundamental props,” again our answer is “no.” Jennings, 108 F.4th at 1304 (internal quotation marks omitted). TL contends that Kontrick and Holland have weak- ened Alton’s “doctrinal underpinning”—that Rule 4007(c) is a juris- dictional, rather than a claim-processing, requirement. Reply Br. 16. The problem for TL is that this alleged doctrinal underpin- ning is nowhere to be found in Alton. Alton makes no mention of this distinction at all. In Alton, we relied not on the distinction between jurisdic- tional and claim-processing rules but, instead, on the Bankruptcy Rule’s plain language in concluding that the creditor, Byrd, was re- quired to file a § 523(c) complaint before the bar date. See Alton, 837 F.2d at 459 (rejecting Byrd’s equities argument because “the time specifications set out in the Bankruptcy Code are sufficiently clear to have placed an obligation on creditor Byrd to follow the case and to take the timely action necessary to pursue his claim.”). The doctrinal underpinning of our decision in Alton was a plain reading of Rule 4007(c) and the absence of any express language in the rule indicating that its deadline was subject to equitable doc- trines. The question, then, is whether Alton’s reliance on a plain reading of Rule 4007(c), was “demolish[ed] and eviscerate[d]” by USCA11 Case: 21-10456 Document: 81-1 Date Filed: 08/11/2025 Page: 18 of 22

18 Opinion of the Court 21-10456

the intervening Supreme Court decisions. Jennings, 108 F.4th at 1304 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court’s de- cision in Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, 586 U.S. 188 (2019), which followed Holland and Kontrick, confirms that it was not. In Lambert, the Supreme Court considered whether the deadline for filing a petition for permission to appeal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) was subject to equitable tolling. The Court explained that when “the pertinent rule or rules invoked show a clear intent to preclude tolling, courts are without authority to make exceptions merely because a litigant appears to have been diligent, reasonably mistaken, or otherwise deserving.” Lambert, 586 U.S. at 192–93. The Court concluded that this bar on equitable tolling applies even when the rule is nonjurisdictional. See id. at 192 (“Whether a rule precludes equitable tolling turns not on its juris- dictional character but rather on whether the text of the rule leaves room for such flexibility.” (emphasis added)). Applying this princi- ple, the Supreme Court examined the text of Rule 23(f) and the rel- evant Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure to determine whether there was a clear intent to preclude equitable tolling. Id. at 193. The Court concluded that Rule 23(f) was not subject to equitable tolling because the relevant rules “express[ed] a clear intent to compel rig- orous enforcement of Rule 23(f)’s deadline, even where good cause for equitable tolling might otherwise exist.” Id. Lambert’s instruction to consider “whether the text of the rule leaves room” for equitable tolling bolsters, rather than under- mines, Alton’s holding that the text of Rule 4007 left no flexibility USCA11 Case: 21-10456 Document: 81-1 Date Filed: 08/11/2025 Page: 19 of 22

21-10456 Opinion of the Court 19

to equitably toll the deadline to file a § 523(c) complaint. Id. at 192. To be sure, even if the portion of Lambert’s reasoning that focused on whether Rule 23(f) was a nonjurisdictional claim-processing rule was absent from or was “at odds with” Alton’s reasoning, “that does not provide [this Court] with a basis from departing from [Al- ton].” Jennings, 108 F.4th at 1305 (internal quotation marks omit- ted). Instead, Lambert informs us that Alton’s foundation—that Rule 4007(c)’s mandatory language does not allow for equitable tolling—remains a “valid basis or rationale” after Kontrick and Hol- land. Del Castillo, 26 F.4th at 1223. After Kontrick and Holland, Alton remains binding precedent. We thus reject TL’s equitable tolling challenge to the bankruptcy court’s order denying TL’s motion to extend the time to file a § 523(c) complaint. B. TL Received Actual Notice of the Bankruptcy Pro- ceeding, Which Was Sufficient to Satisfy Due Pro- cess. As an additional basis for relief, TL argues on appeal that be- cause “courts have discretion to consider . . . due process grounds as a basis for extending” the Rule 4007(c) deadline, we should re- mand to the district court with instructions to remand to the bank- ruptcy court to allow the bankruptcy court to address the merits of such an extension in this case. Appellant’s Br. 39. In support, TL points to our recognition in Alton that “due process provides an av- enue for federal courts to extend the Rule 4007(c) deadline.” Id. at 31 (citing Alton, 837 F.2d at 460–61, 461 n.4). In TL’s view, it would USCA11 Case: 21-10456 Document: 81-1 Date Filed: 08/11/2025 Page: 20 of 22

20 Opinion of the Court 21-10456

be “fundamentally contrary” to due process to deny such an exten- sion in this case “simply because of the fortuity that TL had notice of Ford’s bankruptcy before the April 2019 claims bar date.” Id. at 37. As we explain next, we conclude as a matter of law that such an extension is not warranted here because the pertinent facts are not in dispute and TL received all the notice our precedent requires to satisfy due process. Like TL here, in Alton, the creditor, Byrd, argued that his re- quest to extend the time to file a § 523(c) complaint under Rule 4007(c) should have been granted because he lacked sufficient notice from the bankruptcy court. 837 F.2d at 458. Byrd pointed to the fact that “he never received the required notice of the bar date”; instead, he merely received notice of the bankruptcy proceeding. Id. In Byrd’s view, the bankruptcy court’s denial of his request to extend the filing period considering the deficient notice was “a vi- olation of his fifth amendment right of due process.” Id. We rejected this argument and concluded that mere notice of the bankruptcy proceeding is constitutionally adequate and sat- isfies due process in these circumstances. See id. at 460–61 (conclud- ing that there was no due process violation because “creditor Byrd received actual written notice of the bankruptcy proceeding” be- fore the bar date). We explained that, in this context, sufficient no- tice means “a notice adequate ‘to apprise [the creditor] of the pen- dency of the action and afford him an opportunity to present his objections.’” Id. at 461 (quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950) (alterations adopted)). We acknowledged USCA11 Case: 21-10456 Document: 81-1 Date Filed: 08/11/2025 Page: 21 of 22

21-10456 Opinion of the Court 21

that if a creditor “had no notice of [the] bankruptcy proceeding,” his claim could not be discharged by the bankruptcy court. Id. at 461 n.4 (emphasis in original). But so long as the creditor had “knowledge of a pending bankruptcy proceeding,” she was bound by the bar date, regardless of whether she “received official notice from the court of various pertinent dates.” Id. at 460; see also id. (framing the due process inquiry as whether the creditor had “ac- tual knowledge of the case” (emphasis omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Thus, we affirmed the bankruptcy court’s denial of Byrd’s motion to extend the time to file a § 523(c) complaint be- cause he had timely notice of the bankruptcy proceeding. Id. at 461. Here, it is undisputed that Ford provided TL notice of the bankruptcy proceeding before Rule 4007(c)’s deadline for TL to file a § 523(c) complaint. TL learned of the bankruptcy proceeding when Ford filed the suggestion of bankruptcy with the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Because TL had actual knowledge of the bank- ruptcy case, its due process argument fails. TL argues that we should focus the due process analysis in- stead on whether TL had a duty to inquire of its status as a creditor by the Rule 4007(c) deadline. TL says that even though it had actual knowledge of the bankruptcy proceeding by the Rule 4007(c) dead- line, it had no notice that it was a creditor of Ford’s by that deadline because Ford concealed the existence of its debt to TL. TL points in support of its argument to the fact that before the deadline it had no reason to believe that Ford was indebted to it. USCA11 Case: 21-10456 Document: 81-1 Date Filed: 08/11/2025 Page: 22 of 22

22 Opinion of the Court 21-10456

TL’s argument is foreclosed by our binding precedent. We concluded in Alton that “the language of 11 U.S.C. § 523 . . . makes actual notice [of the bankruptcy case] sufficient to impose a duty- to-inquire on the creditor.” Id. at 460. So, under Alton, TL was placed on inquiry notice before the Rule 4007(c) deadline when it discovered that Ford had declared bankruptcy. Although we are sympathetic to TL’s position that the inquiry may prove to be dif- ficult when the debtor conceals the existence of its debt to the cred- itor, due process requires no notice beyond what TL received here. In sum, TL’s due process challenge to the bankruptcy court’s order denying its motion to file an untimely § 523(c) com- plaint fails under our prior-panel-precedent rule. No subsequent Supreme Court decision has abrogated Alton’s holding that official notice of the bankruptcy proceeding puts creditors on inquiry no- tice and satisfies due process. We are bound by Alton to reject TL’s argument that the Rule 4007(c) deadline should be extended be- cause due process principles required more or different notice here. IV. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, we affirm the bankruptcy court’s or- der denying TL’s motion to extend the deadline to file a complaint pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(c). AFFIRMED.