obligation to assess in advance impact of potential fees and expenses on debtor and plan so debtor can make informed decision as to course of action). As the Trustee notes, the Applicant was well aware that the Debtor’s case was on the brink of dismissal in light of the numerous motions to dismiss that had been filed, yet the Applicant neglected to file its fee application. The court understands the Trustee’s arguments and shares her concerns. However, the court also shares the' reluctance of the Neuman court. In this case, the Applicant was required to seek dismissal promptly upon the request made by the Debtor. As such, it was not practical for the Applicant to prepare and file the Application before seeking dismissal. See In re Fox, 140 B.R. 761, 763-64 (Bankr.D.S.D,1992) (<HOLDING>). After all, the Applicant must place the
recognizing conflict between filing motion to dismiss and fee application and noting postponement of fee application resulted in no prejudice to any party recognizing impraeticality of requiring fee application before dismissal recognizing discretion of district court in determining a fee award recognizing that failure to pay an initial partial filing fee may result in dismissal of a prisoners action under the plra holding that attorneys fees for the preparation of the fee application are compensable