when the notice of the meeting of creditors and the notice of discharge were not returned to the sender. In fact, the presumption was strengthened by the fact that Herndon’s attorney did receive written notice of the debtor’s discharge within 5 days of mailing to the same address as the notice he allegedly claimed he did not receive. The only evidence presented was the declaration of Herndon’s attorney. That declaration was only general; stating that he did not receive the notice of the meeting of creditors. This was not sufficient to rebut the mailing presumption. B. Actual Notice The Ninth Circuit has held that notice is sufficient when the creditor has actual knowledge of the bankruptcy filing in time to file a complaint under § 523. In re Gordon, 988 F.2d 1000, 1001 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Accord In re Walker, 927 F.2d 1138, 1145
holding that notice to supervisor is notice to city holding that actual notice fulfills a notice requirement that an applicable federal regulation be conspicuously posted because actual notice is the best notice holding 57 days notice before deadline to file a complaint under  523 was sufficient notice when creditor had actual notice of filing holding that a creditor who had received actual notice of a bankruptcy proceeding through his counsel did not suffer a due process violation because he had notice in time to file a complaint or at least to file a timely motion for an extension of time holding that a defendant is not entitled to relief from default judgment because notice to an attorney of filing of motions and orders is constructive notice to the client even when the client did not have actual notice