this category. By failing to list Ms. Gerber and Mr. Sanberg in a timely manner, the debtor, Mr. Rollison, forfeits the protection of section 523(c)(1) and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4007(c). See In re Woolard, 190 B.R. 70, 74 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1995) (relying heavily on the analysis in Beezley v. Cal. Land Title Co. (In re Beezley), 994 F.2d 1433 (9th Cir. 1993)). This means that the time period has not expired to determine the dischargeability of Ms. Gerber’s and Mr. Sanberg’s debts. See Hathorn v. Petty (In re Petty), 491 B.R. 554, 559 (8th Cir. BAP 2013) (“[A] complaint under § 523(a)(3) may be filed at any time.”). Not only that, the forum is not limited to the bankruptcy court. Apex Oil Co., Inc. v. Sparks (In re Apex Oil Co., Inc.), 406 F.3d 538, 543 (8th Cir. 2005) (<HOLDING>). The-upshot is that, because Mr. Roili-son’s
holding that when the district court applies the wrong preliminary injunction standard this court may review the record to determine whether the injunction is justified holding that a bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction postconfirmation to adjudicate adversary proceeding concerning asset purchases at bankruptcy sale notwithstanding inclusion of language in the plan purporting to retain such jurisdiction in the bankruptcy court holding federal injunction countermanding a state court injunction did not violate antiinjunction act holding that the state court may adjudicate the applicability of a bankruptcy injunction to state court litigation holding that a federal court litigant who is forced into state court under pullman may reserve a right to return to federal court in that the plaintiff can preserve the right to the federal forum for federal claims by informing the state court of his or her intention to return following litigation of the state claims in the state court