11 U.S.C. § 362

Section 362’s automatic stay applies to the bankruptcy debtor, but does not protect a guarantor of the debtor’s debt.

BA Commercial Corp. v. Hynutek, Inc. · filed 1986-01-08

The automatic stay in bankruptcy applies to “the debtor.” 11 U.S.C. § 362. For present purposes, this means the individual and corporation that have filed for bankruptcy. 11 U.S.C. § 101(12) and (30). It does not include a guarantor of the debt- or.

Section 362(a) does not stay a creditor’s pursuit of an alter ego claim against nonbankrupt codefendants when the claim belongs to the creditor rather than the bankruptcy estate.

In Re S I Acquisition, Inc. · filed 1986-03-10(a)

In concluding that the cause of action asserted in state court by Eastway is not a claim assertable by the debtor-corporation or trustee in bankruptcy, the Court further finds that the claim is not property of the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541. Therefore, the automatic stay provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) does not apply to prevent the filing and serving of interrogatories upon non-bankruptcy co-defendants.

Section 362(a)(1) may stay an action against a nondebtor when the debtor and nondebtor are so closely identified that a judgment against the nondebtor would effectively be a judgment against the debtor.

A.H. Robins Co. v. Piccinin · filed 1986-04-10(a)(1)

This “unusual situation,” it would seem, arises when there is such identity between the debtor and the third-party defendant that the debtor may be said to be the real party defendant and that a judgment against the third-party defendant will in effect be a judgment or finding against the debtor.

Section 362(a)(1) can stay an action against a nondebtor when the debtor is the real party defendant and a judgment against the nondebtor would effectively be a judgment against the debtor.

A.H. Robins Co. v. Piccinin · filed 1986-05-14(a)(1)

This "unusual situation," it would seem, arises when there is such identity between the debtor and the third-party defendant that the debtor may be said to be the real party defendant and that a judgment against the third-party defendant will in effect be a judgment or finding against the debtor.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not prevent a party from proceeding against solvent codefendants of the debtor.

Snow v. Baldwin · filed 1986-05-30

The automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362, does not affect a party’s right to proceed against solvent codefendants.

Section 362’s automatic stay of proceedings against a debtor does not extend to proceedings against the debtor’s co-defendants.

Marcus v. Jefferson Investment Corp. · filed 1986-08-18

The well established rule is that an automatic stay of judicial proceedings against one defendant does not apply to proceedings against co-defendants.

Section 362 does not stay a creditor’s action against individuals who have not filed for bankruptcy.

B & B Enterprise v. Bank of Perryville (In Re B & B Enterprise) · filed 1986-10-30

The Bank’s state court action against the individual Brewers does not violate the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362 unless and until they file petitions in bankruptcy.

Section 362(a) does not stay regulatory action against a debtor’s separately incorporated bank subsidiaries merely because the debtor owns their stock.

Peoples Bankshares, Ltd. v. Department of Banking (In Re Peoples Bankshares, Ltd.) · filed 1986-11-14(a)

In summary, this Court concludes none of the provisions of § 362(a) are applicable to the exercise of the Superintendent of Banking’s regulatory authority over the five subsidiary banks owned by Peoples.

Section 362(a) ordinarily permits litigation against a bankrupt debtor’s solvent co-defendants and joint tortfeasors to proceed.

Terry v. Chauffeurs, Team. & Helpers, Local 391 · filed 1987-06-30(a)

The basic issue raised here is under what circumstances should bankruptcy’s automatic stay operate to put on hold pending litigation against the debtor’s co-defendants. In the usual case, litigation against solvent co-debtors and joint tortfeasors may proceed without the participation of the bankrupt debtor.

Section 362 applies by its terms only to debtors, and stay relief extends to nondebtor guarantors only in unusual circumstances.

Credit Alliance Corp. v. Penn Hook Coal Co., Inc. · filed 1987-07-21

By its terms, section 362 applies only to debtors. ... There are no such unusual circumstances in this case; thus, section 362 relief should not be extended to the Guarantors.

Section 362(a)(1) stays the commencement or continuation of lawsuits; extending a stay to third parties depends on the authority granted by Section 105(a).

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. LTV Corp. (In re Chateaugay Corp.) · filed 1987-08-20(a)(1)

Additionally, Section 362(a)(1) speaks in terms of staying the “commencement or continuation" of lawsuits. Its potential for application against third-parties derives from the “necessary or appropriate” language of Section 105(a).

Section 362(a) does not bar a plaintiff from prosecuting a case against a separate defendant when another defendant is in bankruptcy.

McKeown v. LTV Steel Co. · filed 1987-09-17(a)

Plaintiff's prosecution of his case against Metropolitan is not barred by the bankruptcy stay in favor of LTV.

Section 362(a)(1) does not automatically stay actions against a debtor’s co-defendants; extending the stay to them in special circumstances requires an adversary proceeding under §§ 105 and 362.

All Seasons Resorts, Inc. v. Milner (In Re All Seasons Resorts, Inc.) · filed 1987-11-09(a)(1)

However, to achieve this result, a debtor must proceed through § 105(a). In other words, the extension of § 362 does not occur automatically in this instance, but requires the filing of an appropriate adversary proceeding under § 105 and § 362 to achieve the desired result.

Section 362 does not automatically stay an action against a nondebtor defendant when the record does not show that a judgment against that defendant would effectively be a judgment against the debtor.

General Dynamics Corp. v. Veliotis (In Re Veliotis) · filed 1987-11-09

Therefore, the record before the Bankruptcy Court at this time does not provide a basis upon which to conclude that a judgment against General Dynamics will in effect be a judgment against the Alleged Debtor, and the stay of Section 362 does not operate to prevent the Government from proceeding against Defendants other than the Alleged Debtor in a non-Bankruptcy forum.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay claims against defendants who have not filed bankruptcy petitions merely because a related corporation is a debtor.

Ripley v. Mulroy · filed 1987-11-23(a)(1)

Neither defendant has filed a petition in bankruptcy. In addition, the claims in this case are distinct from those brought in state court against Faith Tours. I therefore conclude that the automatic stay provision does not apply to this case.

Section 362(a)(1) generally does not stay proceedings against nondebtor co-parties, including a corporation separate from an individual debtor.

Personal Designs, Inc. v. Guymar, Inc. · filed 1987-11-18(a)(1)

Actions against co-defendants, guarantors or principals of the debtor generally are not barred by the § 362(a) stay.

Section 362(a) stays an appeal against a Chapter 11 debtor but does not stay proceedings against other parties.

Expressway Texaco Service v. Orgeron · filed 1987-12-08(a)

However, while a chapter 11 proceeding will operate to stay the commencement of this appeal as to Texaco, the third party defendant, it does not stay proceedings as to the other parties.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay actions against nondebtors absent unusual circumstances linking their liability to the debtor, and § 362(a)(3) does not stay actions that do not seek control of estate property.

In Re Meyerland Co. · filed 1988-01-21(a)(1), (a)(3)

Therefore I hold that this case does not present the “unusual circumstances” necessary for a section 362(a)(1) stay of actions asserted by Continental against nondebtor defendants. In addition, I hold that since Continental’s suit does not seek to obtain or exercise control over property of the estate, section 362(a)(3) does not at this time operate to stay the actions of Continental.

Section 362 stays an appeal of a proceeding brought against the debtor, but its stay does not extend to a non-bankrupt co-defendant.

Star-Tel, Inc. v. Nacogdoches Telecommunications, Inc. · filed 1988-01-21

However, stays pursuant to section 362 are limited to debtors and do not encompass non-bankrupt co-defendants.

Section 362 does not stay a creditor’s state-court action against a debtor’s guarantors when the debtor is not a party and the action does not affect the estate; a pending motion to lift the stay does not extend its scope.

Parent v. First Financial Bank, F.S.B. (In re Tulane Hotel Investors Ltd. Partnership) · filed 1988-02-12

But this fact is irrelevant, for the mere existence of a motion to lift the stay does not mean the stay applies to the Parent’s state court action, to which the bankruptcy debtor is not a party.

Section 362(a)'s automatic stay protects a debtor partnership's assets but does not automatically shield its individual partners from judgments or execution against their personal assets.

University Medical Center v. American Sterilizer Co. (In Re University Medical Center) · filed 1988-02-24(a)

Therefore, while a judgment against the partners might ordinarily give rise to a right to execute against partnership assets, the stay would intervene to blunt any such efforts. ... We fail to see why this principle should be a vehicle for the partners to extend the scope of the stay to them, in their respective individual capacities, and prevent any judgment against them from being a lien or a basis for execution against their respective individual assets.

Section 362(a) does not automatically stay claims against a nonbankrupt co-defendant merely because another co-defendant filed for bankruptcy.

Federal Land Bank of Spokane v. Stiles · filed 1988-03-01(a)

Accordingly, the court concludes that proceedings on claims between the PCA and Stiles, Sr., are not subject to stay as a result of the Stiles, Jr., bankruptcy proceedings.

Section 362 automatically stays actions against the debtor or its property, but does not extend the stay to an action against a debtor’s principal on his own obligation.

Apollo Molded Products, Inc. v. Kleinman (In Re Apollo Molded Products, Inc.) · filed 1988-03-03

It is of course true that the automatic stay in effect under § 362 enjoins only action against the Debtor or its property.

Section 362(a) protects the debtor or bankruptcy estate; an insurer is not an intended beneficiary of the automatic stay.

Cardinal Casualty Co. v. Correct Manufacturing Corp. (In Re Correct Manufacturing Corp.) · filed 1988-04-26(a)

Apart from those considerations, the Court finds that the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) exists for the benefit of the debtor or the estate. That stay gives the estate at least a brief opportunity to assess the value of its assets and causes of action. An insurer is not the intended beneficiary of that stay.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays proceedings only against the bankruptcy debtor.

Porta-Kamp Manufacturing Co. v. Atlanta Maritime Corp. · filed 1988-04-28(a)(1)

It is universally acknowledged that the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362 operate to stay proceedings only against the debtor.

Section 362(a) does not automatically stay proceedings against a nonbankrupt guarantor of a Chapter 11 debtor.

Credit Alliance Corporation v. Gary L. Williams, and Penn Hook Coal Company, Inc. Malcolm C. Williams, Jr. · filed 1988-07-05(a)

No such protection is provided to the guarantors of Chapter 11 bankrupts by § 362(a).

Section 362(a)(1) stays proceedings against the debtor, but does not bar a nonbankrupt codefendant’s summary judgment motion that cannot adversely affect the debtor.

Glucksman v. Halsey Drug Co. · filed 1988-10-25(a)(1)

In any case, the automatic bankruptcy stay imposed pursuant to 11 USC § 362 (a) would not ... apply to this motion.

Section 362(a) generally does not stay claims against non-debtor defendants unless unusual circumstances justify extending the stay to them.

In re Jenkins Clinic Hosp. Foundation, Inc. · filed 1988-10-28(a)

While some courts have recognized an exception to this general rule where "unusual circumstances" are present, see e.g., A.H. Robins Co. v. Piccinin, 788 F.2d 994, 999 (4th Cir.1986), the individual defendants in the case at bar have set forth no "unusual circumstances" which would justify applying the stay provisions to Musgrave's claims against them. Therefore, we conclude that the lower courts erred in holding that Musgrave's claims against the non-debtor defendants were void ab initio.

Section 362(a)(1) does not extend the automatic stay to suits against a debtor’s surety on a Little Miller Act payment bond.

Kora & Williams Corp. v. C.J. Coakley Co. (In Re Kora & Williams Corp.) · filed 1988-11-10(a)(1)

By reason of United States ex rel. Central Bldg. Supply, Inc. v. William F. Wilke, Inc., 685 F.Supp. 936 (D.Md.1988), the presence of a Little Miller Act bond in this case requires this Court to conclude that 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code may not be extended to apply here in the fashion that it was extended in A.H. Robins Co., Inc. v. Piccinin, 788 F.2d 994 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 876, 107 S.Ct. 251, 93 L.Ed.2d 177 (1986).

Section 362(a) generally stays proceedings against the debtor, but does not protect a non-bankrupt co-defendant unless a bankruptcy court extends the stay.

B AND B ASSOCIATES v. Fonner · filed 1988-11-29(a)

However, a bankruptcy stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) is generally limited to the debtor and does not protect a non-bankrupt co-defendant.

Section 362(a) does not extend a debtor’s automatic stay to a related company outside bankruptcy merely because both are treated as one employer for ERISA withdrawal liability.

Cardone Realty Corp. v. Teamsters Pension Fund of Philadelphia & Vicinity · filed 1989-05-03(a)

Cardone is thus trying to receive the protection of the stay that took effect on July 10, 1985, although Cardone remained out of bankruptcy for approximately 18 months after the filing of Oneida’s petition. ... In short, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by not allowing Car-done the benefit of the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362, and its decision is hereby affirmed.

Section 362 does not stay a creditor’s claim against a nondebtor transferee when that claim is separate from the creditor’s claim against the debtor.

Stone's Pharmacy, Inc. v. Pharmacy Accounting Management, Inc. · filed 1989-05-22

Pharmacy’s claim under the Act, at least as limited by this opinion, is separate from any claim Stone’s Pharmacy has against PAM and therefore PAM’s bankruptcy and the automatic stay do not affect the continuation of this action.

Section 362(a)(3) stays alter ego and denuding-of-assets claims against a nonbankrupt codefendant when those claims belong to the debtor corporation and become property of its bankruptcy estate.

Audio Data Corp. v. Monus · filed 1990-01-18(a)(3)

Thus, these claims asserted by the Distributors against Van de Wall belonged to ADC and, once ADC filed its petition for bankruptcy, these claims became “property of the estate” of the debtor, ADC, to which the ADC automatic stay was applicable. We conclude, therefore, that under section 362(a)(3) the ADC automatic stay applied to the benefit of the nonbankrupt codefendant Van de Wall.

Section 362(a) ordinarily stays proceedings against a debtor but permits a state court to proceed against a nondebtor codefendant if the proceeding remains stayed as to the debtor.

Collier v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. · filed 1991-02-05(a)

In conformance with this principle, it is well established that an automatic stay under § 362 does not usually affect a State court’s ability to proceed with either a trial or an appeal involving a debtor’s co-defendants, so long as the proceeding is stayed as to the debtor.

Section 362(a) does not stay a claim against a nondebtor unless the nondebtor’s liability is imputed to the debtor by statute or contract; a foreclosure sale committee’s claim against the mortgagee for fees and expenses is not stayed when the debtor is not liable for those costs.

Paragon Mortgage Co. v. Singleton, No. 37 97 35 (Mar. 5, 1991) · filed 1991-03-05(a)

Where, however, a debtor and nondebtor are so bound by statute or contract that the liability of the nondebtor is imputed to the debtor by operation of law, then the stay can apply to the nondebtor because the Congressional intent to protect debtors would be frustrated by permitting indirectly what is expressly prohibited by 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Act. ... The Committee is an officer of the court and her fee for services to effectuate a foreclosure sale is not an "attorney's fee" under the note, and so not imputed by operation of law to the defendant.

Section 362 stays proceedings against a debtor but does not extend the stay to proceedings against a nondebtor party in the same action.

Nofziger Communications, Inc. v. Birks Ex Rel. Wynmark Trust · filed 1991-04-02(a)(1)

Contrary to Wynmark Trust’s assertions, a perfectly reasonable reading of the language of Section 362 is that a bankruptcy petition operates as a stay of a judicial proceeding against the debtor, but does not stay proceedings against other parties within the same action. ... Therefore, we would not stay the proceedings against Wynmark Trust even if we decided to consolidate the action sub judice with the prior action against Griffin and Naing.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays proceedings against the debtor, but does not extend that stay to a co-debtor.

Zurich Insurance v. Raymark Industries, Inc. · filed 1991-05-06(a)(1)

Section 362(a) automatically stays proceedings against the debtor only and not co-debtors. (Otoe County National Bank v. W & P Trucking, Inc. (10th Cir. 1985), 754 F.2d 881, 883.) We find that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to grant the stay as to International, a co-debtor.

Section 362 stays pending proceedings against a bankruptcy debtor but does not stay a claim against a nondebtor union.

Black v. ryder/p.i.e. Nationwide, Inc. And Teamsters Local 519 · filed 1991-06-21

11 U.S.C. Sec. 362 provides for an automatic stay of pending proceedings against the debtor, but the plaintiff driver's claim against the union is not a claim against the debtor.

Section 362(a) stays proceedings against a Chapter 11 debtor but does not automatically stay proceedings against a nonbankrupt co-debtor.

Pelican Homestead & Savings Ass'n v. Campbell · filed 1991-10-16(a)

Accordingly, WE RECOGNIZE the stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 362(a) as it applies to Charles G. Campbell, and take no further action in the proceeding filed on behalf of PELICAN HOMESTEAD AND SAYINGS ASSOCIATION against CHARLES G. CAMPBELL until authorized to do so by the Bankruptcy Court. The claim against AGNES GOFF CAMPBELL is to proceed in regular order. We hold that no stay order of the proceedings against AGNES GOFF CAMPBELL, based solely on the existence of the pending bankruptcy proceedings involving CHARLES G. CAMPBELL, may validly issue at this time.

Section 362 stays an appeal against Chapter 11 debtors but permits the appeal to proceed against nondebtor codefendants.

Miller v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. · filed 1991-11-26

Accordingly, the automatic stay provision, 11 U.S.C. § 362, which stays judicial action "against the debtor” prohibits us from adjudicating Plaintiffs claims against Eagle-Picher and Celotex. ... We are not enjoined from proceeding in this matter as to the remaining Defendants-appellees.

The automatic stay does not extend to a nondebtor when actions against that person would not sufficiently harm or interfere with the debtor’s bankruptcy case.

CCDC Financial Corp. v. Craven (In re CCDC Financial Corp.) · filed 1992-01-06

This Court finds that the facts and circumstances in the present case, as set forth below, do not warrant an extension of the automatic stay to protect Roth, and the actions that plaintiff seeks to enjoin would not result in sufficient harm or interference with the bankruptcy case to warrant the issuance of a specific injunction.

Section 362(a)'s automatic stay does not automatically extend to a creditor's claim against a nondebtor alleged to guarantee the debtor's obligation.

Merritt Bros. v. Marine Midland Realty Credit Corp. · filed 1992-02-10(a)

By its terms, Section 362 is applicable only to debtors. The stay provision was not intended to strip from creditors of bankruptcy debtors the protection sought by requiring a third party to guarantee the debt.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not extend to nondebtors in a state court proceeding merely because settlement negotiations are ongoing.

First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Drake (In Re Ramada Inn-Paragould General Partnership) · filed 1992-03-13

Negotiations are certainly not grounds for extending the 11 U.S.C. § 362 stay to the non-debtors in the state court proceeding.

Section 362 does not extend the automatic stay to a nondebtor joint tortfeasor with independent liability when proceeding against it will not adversely affect the debtor’s estate or creditors’ relative positions.

Willett v. Vitek, Inc. · filed 1992-04-09

In conclusion, the case law extending the protection of the automatic stay to non-debtors in unusual circumstances does not support such an extension under the facts of this case. Further, as a practical matter, allowing this case to proceed against Du Pont will not have a practical adverse effect or impact on Vitek’s estate. Consequently, the automatic stay inuring to Vi-tek does not also inure to Du Pont.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not protect a nondebtor co-guarantor when a judgment on his separate guarantee would have no adverse effect on the debtor.

Union Trust Co. v. Donahue, No. Cv900269979 (Apr. 24, 1992) · filed 1992-04-24(a)

Therefore, this court finds that the Defendant Jeffrey Donahue is not protected by the stay automatically provided his brother Dennis.

Section 362(a)(1) stays actions against the bankruptcy debtor, but does not automatically stay actions against a codebtor.

Surety Life Insurance Co. v. Rupp · filed 1992-05-13(a)(1)

By its own terms, this section applies only to debtors, not codebtors, a well-established rule recognized by courts and commentators.

Section 362(a) does not extend the automatic stay to nonbankrupt codefendants of a debtor, even when their legal or factual circumstances are similar.

Morris v. George Foley, Sr. · filed 1992-12-31(a)

The automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) is not available to non-bankrupt co-defendants of a debtor even if they are in a similar legal or factual nexus with the debtor.

Section 362(a) automatically stays claims against a bankrupt defendant but does not extend the stay to nonbankrupt codefendants.

Rosenbaum v. Dane & Murphy, Inc. · filed 1993-01-11(a)

The automatic stay provisions of the Federal bankruptcy laws do not extend to non-bankrupt codefendants (see, Lynch v Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 710 F2d 1194).

A chapter 11 petition stays proceedings against the debtor, but the stay does not extend to individual codefendants in the circumstances presented.

Howell v. New York Post Co. · filed 1993-04-05(a)(1)

Subsequent to oral argument, the New York Post filed a chapter 11 bankruptcy petition, which operates as an automatic stay of this proceeding (11 USC § 362 [a] [1]). That stay, however, does not apply to the individual defendants in the circumstances presented. Accordingly, the appeal with respect to the Post is stayed, and this opinion applies only to the individual defendants.

Section 362(a) does not stay a creditor’s action against nondebtor guarantors when a judgment against them would not bind the debtor.

Vernes v. State Street Mortgage Company, No. Cv90 033966s (May 18, 1993) · filed 1993-05-18(a)

The automatic stay should not be applied to the non-debtor co-defendant guarantors because (1) the statutory stay language restricts itself to the debtor; (2) a judgment against the guarantors would not bind the debtor; and (3) application of the stay in this case would deprive the creditor of use of a remedy both creditors and guarantors should have reasonably contemplated at the time the loan and guaranties of it were made.

Section 362(a) does not extend the debtor’s automatic stay to nondebtor guarantors when a judgment against them would not bind the debtor.

Vernes v. State Street Mortgage Company, No. Cv90 033966s (May 20, 1993) · filed 1993-05-20(a)

The automatic stay should not be applied to the non-debtor co-defendant guarantors because (1) the statutory stay language restricts itself to the debtor; (2) a judgment against the guarantors would not bind the debtor; and (3) application of the stay in this case would deprive the creditor of use of a remedy both creditors and guarantors should have reasonably contemplated at the time the loan and guaranties of it were made.

Section 362(a)(3) generally does not stay proceedings against entities legally distinct from a bankrupt affiliate when the proceedings do not seek a claim against the debtor or its property.

In Re Two Appeals Arising Out of the San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litigation · filed 1993-06-04(a)(3)

As a general rule, section 362(a)’s automatic stay provisions apply only to the debtor in bankruptcy. ... Since these appeals implicate no attempt to assert, enforce or recover any claim against HoCap or its property, the appeals may proceed.

Section 362(a) generally does not stay actions against nondebtor codebtors or sureties unless assets of the bankruptcy estate are at stake.

Bankr. L. Rep. P 75,305 United States of America v. Dos Cabezas Corp., an Arizona Corporation State of Arizona Departmen · filed 1993-06-21(a)

Ordinarily, however, unless the assets of the bankrupt estate are at stake, the automatic stay does not extend to actions against parties other than the debtor, such as codebtors and sureties.

Section 362(a) does not automatically stay proceedings against a debtor’s nondebtor insurance carriers.

Harmon v. Northern Insurance Co. of New York · filed 1993-06-17(a)

Based on the foregoing, we find that the automatic stay provisions of § 362(a) did not stay further action by Harmon, Jr. against his father’s insurance carriers.

Section 362(a) stays proceedings against a bankruptcy debtor but does not automatically stay proceedings against other defendants in the same appeal.

Gandal v. Telemundo Group · filed 1993-07-20(a)

This petition automatically stayed our proceedings as to Telemundo, see 11 U.S.C. § 362(a); Association of St. Croix Condominium Owners v. St. Croix Hotel Corp., 682 F.2d 446 (3d Cir.1982), but the automatic stay does not apply to the other defendants, Reliance, Fritz, and Beath.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not protect independent nondebtor guarantors from collection on their guarantees.

Veeco Investment Co. v. Mercantile National Bank of St. Louis, N.A. (In Re Veeco Investment Co.) · filed 1993-07-29(a)(3)

In the instant case, the Cohens are independent guarantors of the Debtor’s obligation to Mercantile. As guarantors they are not protected by the automatic stay, and for the reasons set forth above, the automatic stay provides no authority for the Court to enjoin Mercantile’s collection efforts against the Cohens on their guarantees.

Section 362(a) stays proceedings against the debtor and its property, but does not stay proceedings against related nondebtors or their property.

Mother African Union Methodist Church v. Conference of AUFCMP Church (In re Conference of African Union First Colored Me · filed 1995-04-28(a)

Code § 362(a) only stays actions against the debtor and its property. Code § 362(a) does not stay actions against persons (or their property) who are related to the debtor or who are participants in the harm or liability underlying claims against the debtor.

Section 362(a) does not protect a debtor’s insurers from suit when they have not shown that the suit would impair reorganization or that their interests are so intertwined with the debtor’s that they are the real parties in interest.

Carway v. Progressive County Mutual Insurance · filed 1995-05-10(a)

PCMIC and PCIC, as insurers of the debtors, are not entitled to the protection of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). Rutledge, as a solvent co-defendant, is no longer subject to the bankruptcy stay, as the stay was lifted as to him, and Carway’s action against him was severed. The fact that the defendants may first have to pay the judgment before collecting the deductible from the debtors is irrelevant. PCMIC and PCIC have not shown that the payment of the judgment would adversely affect PST’s and Great Western’s reorganization. Likewise, PCMIC and PCIC have not demonstrated that their interests are so intertwined with those of PST and Great Western that they are the real parties in interest in the bankruptcy proceeding. Therefore, as the instant action is not connected to, nor does it interfere with, the bankruptcy proceeding of the defendants’ insureds, the automatic stay is of no effect.

Section 362 stays proceedings against the debtor but does not stay claims against alleged co-tortfeasors who are not debtors.

McCratic v. Bristol-Myers Squibb and Co. · filed 1995-06-14

While the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362 precludes further prosecution of the plaintiffs’ suit against Dow Corning in state court, the plaintiffs’ claims against all of the other defendants may certainly proceed there. The automatic stay applies only to the debtor and not to the alleged co-tortfeasors.

The automatic stay in a Chapter 13 case extends to foreclosure against a nondebtor joint tenant when the debtor retains a right of survivorship in the property.

Household Realty Corp. v. Pelzar, No. Cv 910392629s (Jun. 14, 1995) · filed 1995-06-14(a)(3)

A filing of a Chapter 13 bankruptcy by one joint tenant, with right of survivorship, however, does not sever the joint tenancy and the stay granted by the bankruptcy court does apply to the non-debtor joint tenant.

Section 362(a)(1) generally does not stay proceedings against nondebtor defendants, though an exception may apply when the debtor must indemnify the nondebtor.

Murnane Associates, Inc. v. Harrison Garage Parking Corp. · filed 1995-07-14(a)(1)

The automatic stay pursuant to section 362 (a) (1) of the Bankruptcy Code (11 USC § 362 [a] [1]) does not apply to non-debtor defendants (Central Buffalo Project Corp. v Edison Bros. Stores, 205 AD2d 295, 297). Although an exception has been recognized when the bankrupt is obligated to indemnify a non-debtor defendant (see, e.g., Robins Co. v Piccinin, 788 F2d 994, 999, cert denied 479 US 876), the City of Syracuse has failed to show that such circumstance exists here.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not cover an appeal against a nondebtor codefendant merely because another defendant filed for bankruptcy.

Johnson v. Lull Enterprises, Inc. · filed 1995-10-11

On motion of the Johnsons, this court ordered that the appeal as to Hy-Reach be placed on the docket and heard in due course since Hy-Reach was not covered by the automatic stay provided for in 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays proceedings against the debtor, but does not itself stay proceedings against a nondebtor codefendant.

SMF Realty Co. v. Consolini · filed 1995-11-16(a)(1)

Section 362(a)(1) by its terms provides a stay only to the debtor.

Section 362 does not stay enforcement of a guaranteed obligation against the primary obligor when the guarantor files for bankruptcy.

Dates v. Harbor Bank · filed 1995-12-05

Today, we extend that principle, and hold that the stay occasioned by the filing of a guarantor’s bankruptcy petition does not bar enforcement of the underlying “guaranteed” obligation against the primary obligor.

Section 362’s automatic stay of proceedings against a bankrupt corporation does not bar claims against its nonbankrupt guarantors.

Crossland Federal Savings Bank Ex Rel. Federal Deposit Insurance v. A. Suna & Co. · filed 1996-06-13

The stay of proceedings created by 11 U.S.C. § 362, therefore, does not affect this case and cannot be used as an affirmative defense by the Simas.

Section 362 does not stay an appeal concerning only the rights and liabilities of nondebtor guarantors when the debtor’s rights and liabilities are not at issue.

Beltrone v. General Schuyler & Co. · filed 1996-07-25

Based upon these principles, we conclude that the automatic stay resulting from Dubroffs bankruptcy petition does not affect this appeal.

Section 362(a)(1) does not automatically stay actions against non-debtors; the debtor must obtain a stay order from the bankruptcy court.

Bidermann Industries U.S.A., Inc. v. Zelnik (In Re Bidermann Industries U.S.A., Inc.) · filed 1996-10-04(a)(1)

I conclude that section 362(a)(1) does not apply automatically to stay actions against non-debtors. The debtor must obtain a stay order from the bankruptcy court, and until it does, the action against the non-debtor may proceed.

Section 362(a)(3) does not stay a creditor’s alter ego action against a debtor’s parent when the claim is not property of the debtor’s estate.

In Re Rcs Engineered Products Company, Inc., Debtor. Spartan Tube and Steel, Inc. v. Daniel C. Himmelspach Railcar Speci · filed 1996-12-11(a)(3)

As we determined above, an alter ego claim against the parent company is not property of the subsidiary’s estate for the purposes of the Bankruptcy Code. Accordingly, the automatic stay provision of the Code does not apply to Spartan’s state court alter ego action against Railcar.

Section 362(a)(1) can stay a proceeding against a nondebtor when the debtor is effectively the real party defendant and the proceeding would affect the bankruptcy estate.

McCartney v. Integra National Bank North · filed 1997-02-11(a)(1)

Accordingly, Integra was stayed from pursuing a deficiency judgment action against the nondebtor third party Lamar’s because McCartney was, in essence, the real party in interest.

Section 362 automatically stays specified actions against the debtor or estate but does not authorize a new injunction protecting nondebtors.

Schwinn Cycling & Fitness, Inc. v. Benonis (In Re Schwinn Bicycle Co.) · filed 1997-03-07

Section 362 does not by its terms provide authority for entry of new injunctions to protect non-debtors.

Section 362(a)(6) does not bar a creditor from enforcing a debtor’s obligation against a co-debtor or property owned by a third party.

In Re Johnson · filed 1997-04-14(a)(6)

I disagree with decisions which read section 362(a)(6) to prohibit the enforcement of a debtor’s obligation, against co-debtors, or against property of third parties.

Section 362(a)'s automatic stay of proceedings against a bankrupt corporation does not prevent an action from continuing against its nondebtor officer.

Jack W. Greening, Sr., D/B/A Rolling Ridge Ranch Jack W. Greening, Jr. Victoria C. Raye-Greening v. Stratton Oakmont, In · filed 1997-04-30(a)

This disposition adjudicates only the appeal of Porush. Any action with respect to Stratton Oakmont was automatically stayed as a result of its bankruptcy. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a); Ingersoll-Rand Fin. Corp. v. Miller Mining Co., 817 F.2d 1424, 1426-27 (9th Cir.1987). The automatic stay does not bar the action from proceeding against Porush.

Section 362(a) stays claims against a bankruptcy debtor but does not stay claims against nonbankrupt codefendants.

Nippon Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Skyway Freight Systems, Inc. · filed 2000-12-06(a)

Nippon's claims against United and USAir, however, remain before us. These remaining claims are not subject to the automatic stay and properly may go forward.

Section 362 stays an action against a defendant who files for bankruptcy, while the action may proceed against a nondebtor codefendant.

WIT Corp. v. Weber · filed 2001-04-25

On January 5, 2001 Weber filed a Suggestion of Bankruptcy with this Court. As a result, the filing operates to stay this action with respect to him. See 11 U.S.C. §362. Therefore, only the allegation in count II of the complaint (unjust enrichment against Brown) is before the Court today.

Section 362(a)(3) does not stay a creditor’s direct tortious interference claim against a nondebtor when the claim concerns an injury specific to that creditor and its recovery would not diminish assets available to other creditors.

In Re Eagle Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2001-05-21(a)(3)

With this claim, appellants seek to impose direct liability on USA Waste on a basis unique to them rather than seeking to hold USA waste vicariously liable for debtors’ debts generally. ... By its nature, such a claim involves conduct and injuries specific to a particular plaintiff. Other creditors, who were not parties to the subject contract, would lack standing to assert the claim. A successful prosecution of this claim would not diminish the potential assets available to satisfy other creditors. The court concludes that this claim is not subject to the automatic stay.

Section 362’s automatic stay of proceedings against the debtor does not protect a guarantor who is not the bankruptcy debtor.

Miller v. Transamerica Commercial Finance Corp. · filed 2001-06-20(a)(1)

However, appellant was not the debtor in the bankruptcy action, so the stay was not applicable to an action against him. We have held that an automatic stay in bankruptcy is not for the benefit of a guarantor.

Section 362(a)(1) does not automatically stay claims against a nondebtor codefendant; a party seeking to extend the stay must obtain a bankruptcy court order.

C.H. Robinson Co. v. Paris & Sons, Inc. · filed 2001-12-10(a)(1)

In sum, the court concludes that the automatic stay under section 362(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code is not truly “automatic” when invoked against non-debtor codefendants. The party seeking to invoke an extension of the stay must affirmatively seek an order from the bankruptcy court, which has authority to extend the protections of 362(a) pursuant to its equity powers under section 105.

Section 362(a) generally does not stay actions against nondebtors or their property, absent proof that the action would harm the debtor or that the debtor is indispensable to the third-party litigation.

In Re Lennington · filed 2001-12-26(a)

Further, the automatic stay provision of § 362 does not apply to actions taken against third parties or assets which are not assets of a debtor or a debtor’s estate, and absent proof that harm would result to a debtor or that a debtor is an indispensable element of any possible third party litigation, this Court cannot find that § 362 protects the KRUGS’ CD.

Section 362 generally does not stay actions against nondebtor codefendants.

Arnold v. Garlock, Inc. · filed 2001-12-28(a)

Section 362 is rarely, however, a valid basis on which to stay actions against non-debtors.

Section 362 generally does not stay actions against nondebtor codefendants.

Burdo v. AC&S Inc · filed 2002-01-03

Section 362 is rarely, however, a valid basis on which to stay actions against non-debtors.

Section 362 rarely stays actions against nondebtor codefendants, but it may do so when their identity with the debtor makes a judgment against them effectively a judgment against the debtor.

Jackson v. AC&S Inc · filed 2002-01-03

Section 362 is rarely, however, a valid basis on which to stay actions against non-debtors. ... By exception, a bankruptcy court may invoke § 362 to stay proceedings against nonbankrupt co-defendants where such identity between the debtor and the third-party defendant exists that the debtor may be said to be the real party defendant and that a judgment against the third-party defendant will in effect be a judgment or finding against the debtor.

Section 362 may stay proceedings against a nondebtor codefendant when its identity with the debtor makes a judgment against it effectively a judgment against the debtor.

Sterling v. AC&S Inc · filed 2002-01-03

By exception, a bankruptcy court may invoke § 362 to stay proceedings against nonbankrupt co-defendants where such identity between the debtor and the third-party defendant exists that the debtor may be said to be the real party defendant and that a judgment against the third-party defendant will in effect be a judgment or finding against the debtor.

Section 362 generally does not stay actions against nondebtor codefendants.

McDowell v. AC&S Inc · filed 2002-01-03

Section 362 is rarely, however, a valid basis on which to stay actions against non-debtors.

Section 362 generally does not stay actions against nondebtor codefendants.

Tipple v. Able Supply Co · filed 2002-01-03

Section 362 is rarely, however, a valid basis on which to stay actions against non-debtors.

Section 362 generally stays actions against a debtor, but it extends to a nondebtor codefendant only when the codefendant is so closely identified with the debtor that a judgment against the codefendant would effectively be a judgment against the debtor.

Madden v. Able Supply Co · filed 2002-01-03

Section 362 is rarely, however, a valid basis on which to stay actions against non-debtors. ... By exception, a bankruptcy court may invoke § 362 to stay proceedings against nonbankrupt co-defendants where such identity between the debtor and the third-party defendant exists that the debtor may be said to be the real party defendant and that a judgment against the third-party defendant will in effect be a judgment or finding against the debtor.

Section 362 generally does not stay proceedings against nondebtor codefendants.

Nelson v. AC & S Incorporated · filed 2002-01-03

Section 362 is rarely, however, a valid basis on which to stay actions against non-debtors.

Section 362's automatic stay generally does not extend to nondebtor codefendants.

Wayne v. AC & S Inc · filed 2002-01-03

Section 362 is rarely, however, a valid basis on which to stay actions against non-debtors.

Section 362 generally does not stay actions against nondebtor codefendants.

Stearns v. A C & S Inc · filed 2002-01-03

Section 362 is rarely, however, a valid basis on which to stay actions against non-debtors.

Section 362 generally does not stay actions against nondebtor codefendants; an exception may apply when their interests are so closely identified with the debtor that a judgment against them would effectively be a judgment against the debtor.

Combs v. Able Supply Co · filed 2002-01-03

Section 362 is rarely, however, a valid basis on which to stay actions against non-debtors. ... By exception, a bankruptcy court may invoke § 362 to stay proceedings against nonbankrupt co-defendants where such identity between the debtor and the third-party defendant exists that the debtor may be said to be the real party defendant and that a judgment against the third-party defendant will in effect be a judgment or finding against the debtor.

Section 362 generally does not stay actions against nondebtor codefendants, but a court may extend the stay where their identity with the debtor makes a judgment against them effectively a judgment against the debtor.

Sanden v. ACands Inc · filed 2002-01-03

By exception, a bankruptcy court may invoke § 362 to stay proceedings against nonbankrupt co-defendants where such identity between the debtor and the third-party defendant exists that the debtor may be said to be the real party defendant and that a judgment against the third-party defendant will in effect be a judgment or finding against the debtor.

Section 362 ordinarily does not stay actions against nondebtor codefendants.

Hill v. ACands, Inc · filed 2002-01-03

Section 362 is rarely, however, a valid basis on which to stay actions against non-debtors.

Section 362 generally does not stay actions against a debtor’s nondebtor codefendants.

Lehnhoff v. Acands, Inc · filed 2002-01-03

Section 362 is rarely, however, a valid basis on which to stay actions against non-debtors.

Section 362 generally does not stay suits against nondebtor codefendants, but a bankruptcy court may extend the stay when the debtor is effectively the real defendant.

Short v. Acands, Inc · filed 2002-01-03

By exception, a bankruptcy court may invoke § 362 to stay proceedings against nonbankrupt co-defendants where such identity between the debtor and the third-party defendant exists that the debtor may be said to be the real party defendant and that a judgment against the third-party defendant will in effect be a judgment or finding against the debtor.

Section 362(a)(3) stays actions to possess or control estate property even when those actions are directed at third parties rather than the debtor.

Republic Technologies International, LLC v. Maley (In Re Republic Technologies International, LLC) · filed 2002-02-21(a)(3)

Section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code stays any action to obtain possession of or to exercise control over estate property regardless of whether the action at issue has been taken against the debtor or against some third party, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3).

The automatic stay does not extend to nonbankrupt codefendants or coobligors, so their appeals may proceed despite a debtor’s bankruptcy.

United States v. Lyons · filed 2002-03-07(a)(1), (a)(3)

As it is well settled that the automatic stay does not apply to nonbankrupt codefendants or coobligors (see, Teachers Ins. & Annuity Assn. of Am. v Butler, 803 F2d 61, 65; Torre v Fay’s Inc., 259 AD2d 896, 897; Hudgins v Life Sav. Bank, 153 BR 441, 444), we conclude that the stay here does not affect defendant’s appeal (see, Beltrone v General Schuyler & Co., 229 AD2d 857, 858).

Section 362(a)(1) ordinarily does not stay proceedings against solvent codefendants of a debtor.

In re Delta Air Lines · filed 2002-11-21(a)(1)

In the absence of unusual circumstances, the automatic stay does not halt proceedings against solvent codefendants.

Section 362(a)(1) generally does not stay proceedings against solvent codefendants of a debtor, absent unusual circumstances.

In Re Delta Air Lines Northwest Airlines Corp. Northwest Airlines, Inc. Us Airways Group, Inc. Us Airways, Inc. · filed 2002-11-21(a)(1)

In the absence of unusual circumstances, the automatic stay does not halt proceedings against solvent codefend-ants.

Section 362(a)(1) does not bar amendment of a pending proceeding to remove the debtor and add nondebtor control persons as defendants.

In Re Richard B. Vance and Co. · filed 2003-02-04(a)(1)

Following these authorities, the request for leave to amend RAQUEL’S arbitration claim to exclude the DEBTOR and to add its control persons, and the filing of such an amended claim, were not actions taken against the DEBTOR, and the automatic stay does not preclude such actions.

Section 362(a)(1) does not bar proceedings against a nondebtor or the service of notice of those proceedings on the debtor when the service is not an effort to collect from the debtor.

Christakis v. McMahon (In Re Christakis) · filed 2003-03-28(a)(1)

By the same token, there is no per se violation of the stay in serving notice to the debtor of actions taking place in litigation to which the debtor was formerly an active party. In this case, the continuation of the small claims action was not against the Debtor; McMahon sought to amend the complaint to substitute Pagona. Service of process of the amendment was not an action designed to collect any money from the Debtor and, accordingly, the automatic stay is inapplicable.

Section 362 does not require a stay of claims against a nondebtor merely because a co-defendant has filed for bankruptcy.

Phoenix Container v. Samarah · filed 2003-04-03

Further, it is clear that the District Court did not err in refusing to grant a stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 due to SHC’s bankruptcy filing and it did not abuse its discretion in otherwise refusing to grant a stay.

Section 362(a)(6) stays acts to recover prepetition claims against the debtor but does not extend the stay to claims against nonbankrupt codefendants merely because their cases are related.

Roads West, Inc. v. Austin · filed 2003-12-19(a)(6)

Pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(6), the filing of a bankruptcy petition operates as a stay of any act to collect, assess, or recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case. However, nothing in the statute extends the stay to causes of action against non-bankrupt co-defendants of a debtor even if they are in a similar legal or factual nexus with the debtor.

Section 362(a)(1) and (3) stay litigation against the debtor but do not automatically stay litigation against nonbankrupt corporate officers.

In Re Trans-Service Logistics, Inc. · filed 2004-01-12(a)(1), (3)

The bankruptcy filing served to stay the litigation as to the Debtor, but not Messrs. Waters and Robertson. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(l)and (3).

Section 362(a)(1) stays litigation against a debtor but does not protect nondebtor officers and employees from that litigation.

Armstrong v. Trans-Service Logistics, Inc. (In Re Trans-Service Logistics, Inc.) · filed 2004-01-28(a)(1)

Messrs. Waters and Robertson are not debtors, and are not subject to the automatic stay protections of this Court.

Section 362(a)(1)’s automatic stay of proceedings against a bankrupt corporation does not extend to its individual codefendants in these circumstances.

Caprin v. Simon Transportation Services, Inc. · filed 2004-02-23(a)(1)

STS’s filing triggered an automatic stay of these proceedings, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). We requested supplemental briefing from the parties regarding whether the automatic stay should also apply to the individual codefendants under the particular circumstances of this case. See Okla. Federated Gold & Numismatics, Inc., v. Blodgett, 24 F.3d 136, 141 (10th Cir. 1994). All parties agree that the automatic stay should not apply to the individual codefendants. Consequently, after reviewing the parties’ submissions, we are satisfied that a ruling should issue as to the individual defendants.

Section 362(a)'s automatic stay protects an individual Chapter 7 debtor but does not extend to separate nondebtor LLCs listed as former business names or to other nondebtor individuals.

In Re Calhoun · filed 2004-06-24(a)

Only the named petitioner, David Richard Calhoun, is protected by the automatic stay in this case. None of the LLC’s referred to are parties to the bankruptcy. ... Some reference is made to a Chad Calhoun and a Deb Calhoun. So there is no misunderstanding, these individuals are not debtors or parties in this bankruptcy case and are not protected by the automatic stay.

The automatic stay generally does not extend to nonbankrupt codefendants.

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Oxford Venture Partners, LLC · filed 2004-12-07(a)(1)

It is well settled that “[t]he automatic stay provisions of the Federal bankruptcy laws ... do not extend to nonbankrupt codefendants” (Maynard v George A. Fuller Co., 236 AD2d 300, 300 [1997]; see also Golden v Moscowitz, 194 AD2d 385 [1993]; CenTrust Servs. Inc. v Guterman, 160 AD2d 416 [1990]; 11 USC § 362 [a] [1]).

Section 362(a)(1) generally protects only the debtor, but unusual circumstances may justify enjoining proceedings against a nondebtor when liability may be imputed to the debtor and the proceedings threaten the debtor’s operations.

Friedman's, Inc. v. Zale Corp. (In Re Friedman's, Inc.) · filed 2005-06-16(a)(1)

It is well established that although the provisions of the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362 are not unlimited in scope, the Bankruptcy Court may, in certain circumstances, enjoin or issue a stay of proceedings against a non-bankrupt third party. ... It is clear from the entire record that “unusual circumstances” exist, that Zale has suggested that Ms. Romano’s liability for her alleged acts can be imputed to Friedman’s, that the actions she allegedly has taken are “inextricably interwoven” with the Debtor’s interests, and that judicial economy would be served if these issues were fully litigated in this Court in a single proceeding rather than running the risk of inconsistent results if the Debtor’s action proceeded in this Court against Zale and Zale’s action against Ms. Romano proceeded in Dallas County, Texas.

Section 362(a)'s automatic stay generally does not protect a debtor partnership's nonbankrupt general partners from creditors' claims.

Wilmann LLC v. Alexander Properties Group, Inc. (In Re Hidden Pointe Properties, L.P.) · filed 2005-06-20(a)

As a general proposition, the automatic stay does not protect general partners.

Section 362 does not extend the automatic stay to nondebtor employees merely because their bankrupt employer voluntarily promises to defend and indemnify them.

Payne v. U.S. Airways · filed 2005-07-20

It is the general conclusion of this court that a § 362 stay would be inappropriate given the lack of any intimate relationship between U.S. Airways and the co-defendants that would qualify as an “unusual circumstance” under Robins. The employment and voluntary indemnity relationships as well as Ms. Payne’s renewed litigation against co- defendants does not trigger any of the concerns behind § 362.

Section 362(a)(1) stays pending cross-claims against a debtor but does not preclude proceedings against nonbankrupt parties.

Master Builders v. Hardcore Comp. Oper., Unpublished Decision (9-1-2005) · filed 2005-09-01(a)(1)

The record demonstrates that Zoltek's cross-claims against Hardcore for contribution and/or indemnification were pending as of the June 25, 2004 filing of Hardcore's bankruptcy petition. Therefore, the claims were stayed pursuant to Hardcore's bankruptcy petition. ... An automatic bankruptcy stay, however, does not preclude the continuation of the proceedings against non-bankrupt parties.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay proceedings against a nondebtor joint tortfeasor whose independent liability lacks an identity of interest with the debtor.

Morris v. Rowallan Alaska, Inc. · filed 2005-09-30(a)(1)

As explained above, a joint tort-feasor is “independently liable” and lacks an identity of interest with its co-defendant. The joint tortfeasor is therefore not protected by the bankruptcy filing of a co-defendant.

Section 362(a)(1)'s automatic stay extends to a nondebtor employee when a judgment against the employee would likely be imputed to, or bind, the debtor employer.

Graziani v. Randolph · filed 2005-11-09(a)(1)

To allow Graziani to proceed against Randolph, when any judgment against him would likely be imputed to BMC, and at the very least would be binding on BMC, would also constitute an impermissible violation of BMC's right to due process. Therefore, we find that the 2005 Clarification Order requires a finding that the trial court erred when it refused to strike the default judgment against Randolph as well as BMC.

The automatic stay does not invalidate a withdrawal-liability demand sent to a bankrupt employer as notice to solvent members of its controlled group or bar collection from those members.

I.A.M. National Pension Fund v. TMR Realty Co. · filed 2006-03-31

These cases point to the conclusion that the automatic stay obtained by Clark-lift on July 5, 2001 had no impact on the notices provided to Clarklift — and by extension, Defendants TMR Realty Co. and Toyota Lift — beginning with the Plan’s Notice and Demand on October 11, 2002.

Section 362 automatically stays judicial proceedings against a debtor upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition, but does not stay proceedings against other defendants in the case.

United States v. Novello · filed 2006-08-07(a)(1)

Under 11 U.S.C. § 362, the filing of a bankruptcy petition immediately stays judicial proceedings against the debtor, but not against other defendants in the case.

Section 362(a) automatically stays proceedings against the debtor but does not stay proceedings against a nonfiling spouse merely because the spouse may be jointly liable on the debt.

Ali v. DeMaddis · filed 2006-12-18(a)

While the stay provisions of the Bankruptcy ... Code do automatically stay all proceedings against the debtor, they do not apply to nonfiling parties, even a spouse who may be jointly liable on a debt with the debtor-filer.

The automatic stay generally does not protect non-debtor parties, but may extend to proceedings involving inextricably intertwined allegations against debtors and non-debtors if the bankruptcy estate would be jeopardized.

Frederic A. Gladle Management Trust v. Leifheit · filed 2007-05-18(a)

There are multiple other parties in this suit; although the automatic stay in a bankruptcy case generally does not protect non-debtor parties, if the allegations against the debtor and non-debtors arise from the same factual and legal basis and are inextricably intertwined, then the stay may apply to the proceedings if the bankruptcy estate would be jeopardized.

Section 362(a)(1) and (a)(6) do not bar a third-party complaint seeking recovery solely from nondebtor entities and insurers.

Santa Fe Minerals, Inc. v. BEPCO, L.P. (In Re 15375 Memorial Corp.) · filed 2008-02-15(a)(1), (a)(6)

Preliminarily, the automatic stay was not violated by BEPCO’s filing of the Third Party Complaint or its filing of the Motion to Reinstate. Neither act was the commencement or continuation of an action against the Debtors prescribed by Code Section 362(a)(1) or an act in furtherance of a claim against the Debtors prescribed by section 362(a)(6). Indeed, Santa Fe was not even named as a defendant in the Third Party Complaint, which sought recovery only from the GSF Entities, certain of the Debtors’ insurers and other non-debtor parties. The automatic stay does not extend to benefit such non-debtor parties.

Section 362(a)'s automatic stay applies only to proceedings against the bankruptcy debtor and does not extend to nondebtor codefendants.

Day Cruises Maritime, L.L.C. and Corpus Christi Day Cruise, L.L.C. v. Christus Spohn Health System D/B/A Christus Spohn · filed 2008-04-17(a)

Although the automatic stay would operate only against the bankruptcy debtor, Florida Day Cruises, and not against appellants, see id. , appellants contend that the May 26, 2006 judgment was voidable as to appellants because the court's order of severance as to Florida Day Cruises was not entered until September 14, 2006, which, according to appellees, was after the court's plenary jurisdiction had expired.

Section 362(a)'s automatic stay applies only to claims against bankrupt defendants when no special circumstances are asserted to extend it to non-bankrupt co-defendants.

Zimmer v. Nawabi · filed 2008-05-14(a)

Similarly, none of the parties contend that the automatic stays resulting from Lodin and Na-wabi's bankruptcies should apply to the remaining non-bankrupt defendants. Those automatic stays, therefore, apply only to claims against Lodin and Nawabi.

Section 362(a)'s automatic stay protecting a bankrupt corporation does not extend to its nonbankrupt officer sued as a codefendant for the same copyright infringement.

Broadcast Music, Inc. v. NORTHERN LIGHTS, INC. · filed 2008-05-20(a)

Due to Northern Lights, Inc.’s petition in bankruptcy, all judicial proceedings against it have been stayed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). ... Finck, however, is not entitled to the automatic stay, and it is manifestly unjust to allow him to shield himself behind the protection afforded Northern Lights, Inc. as a defendant in bankruptcy.

Section 362(a)(1) stays proceedings against the debtor but does not prevent consideration of claims against nondebtor co-defendants.

Nitro Dynamics, Inc. v. Petruzzi Bros. · filed 2008-09-26(a)(1)

The automatic stay provisions apply only to proceedings against the debtor and not to proceedings against the debtor’s co-defendants. ... In this action, Pulte is not a debtor protected by the automatic stay, even assuming the stay has not been modified by the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 362(a)'s automatic stay applies to the bankruptcy debtor and does not extend to the nondebtor co-defendants in the same action.

Day Cruises Maritime, L.L.C. v. Christus Spohn Health System · filed 2008-10-02(a)

Although the automatic stay would operate only against the bankruptcy debt- or, Florida Day Cruises, and not against appellants, see id., appellants contend that the May 26, 2006 judgment was voidable as to appellants because the court’s order of severance as to Florida Day Cruises was not entered until September 14, 2006, which, according to appellees, was after the court’s plenary jurisdiction had expired.

Section 362(a)'s automatic stay generally does not extend to solvent co-parties, and those parties are not protected when the record does not support an applicable exception.

Flying J Inc. v. Comdata Network, Inc. · filed 2009-04-20(a)

Automatic stay provisions generally do not extend to solvent co-parties. ... Because nothing in the record suggests Flying J Inc.’s co- parties would be entitled to this exception, we do not stay this case as to TCH, CFJ Properties, TON Services, and TFJ.

Section 362's automatic stay applies only to defendants who have filed for bankruptcy and does not prevent an appeal from proceeding against nonbankrupt codefendants.

Patsy Jane Boudreaux v. Able Supply Co. · filed 2009-04-29

However, the automatic stay imposed by Section 362 only applies to the party or parties filing for bankruptcy and does not apply to non-bankrupt co-defendants.

Section 362’s automatic stay generally does not apply to a debtor’s codefendants.

Butler v. Cooper-Standard Automotive, Inc · filed 2010-04-30(a)(1)

Butler’s claims against Barnhisel remain active because the mandatory stay does not apply to “separate legal entities such as corporate affiliates, partners in debtor partnerships, or to codefendants in pending litigation.” Patton v. Bearden, 8 F.3d 343, 349 (6th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted; emphasis removed).

Section 362(a) does not require a court to stay claims against nondebtor control persons merely because the alleged primary violator is in bankruptcy.

In re Thornburg Mortgage, Inc. Securities Litigation · filed 2011-06-02(a)

The Court agrees that the bankruptcy stay does not require it to reserve judgment on the Plaintiffs Section 20(a) claims against Goldstone, Simmons, and Decoff.

Section 362(a)(1) generally stays claims against the debtor, but does not stay claims against solvent codefendants unless a limited exception applies.

Lehman v. City of Topeka · filed 2014-04-04(a)(1)

We find persuasive the reasoning of the federal courts in the cases set forth above and adopt it as the law in Kansas. Applying this new legal principle to the facts presented here, we hold the stay provision in this case extended only to the debtor (Miller) and not to the debtor's solvent codefendants. Moreover, there is nothing in the record to support, and Lehman does not allege, application of the limited exceptions described above to the present case. Accordingly, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) did not operate to stay Lehman's claims against the City.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay a creditor’s claim against a non-debtor when the claim has an independent basis from the creditor’s claim against the debtor.

Lee v. McCardle (In re Peeples) · filed 2016-07-14(a)(1)

Put another way, even though a creditor may have a claim against the debtor, a creditor is free to pursue its claim against a non-debtor so long as there is an independent basis for the creditor to pursue that claim.

The automatic stay protects the debtor from judicial proceedings but does not stay claims against a nondebtor codefendant.

Higgins v. Superior Court of San Diego Cnty. · filed 2017-09-28(a)(1)

As we explain, because the automatic stay in the Bankruptcy Case applied only to claims against the debtor, Powell, and not to claims Cabandong may have had against Higgins, Cabandong could have named and served Higgins at any time.

Section 362 stays all claims against a defendant in bankruptcy proceedings, so the case may be administratively closed until the stay is lifted.

Gilbert v. U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives · filed 2018-01-23

Nevertheless, because Sabate is in bankruptcy proceedings, all claims against him are subject to the automatic stay. The case will therefore be administratively closed until the stay is lifted.

Section 362 stays proceedings against a defendant who has filed for bankruptcy, but generally does not extend to nonbankrupt codefendants absent unusual circumstances.

IOU Central Inc. v. Division Avenue, LLC · filed 2022-10-13

This case is stayed with respect to this Defendant pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362. However, “[e]xtending a stay to nonbankrupt co- defendants is justified only in ‘unusual circumstances.’” Parry v. Mohawk Motors of Michigan, Inc., 236 F.3d 299, 314 (6th Cir. 2000) (quoting In re Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc., 963 F.2d 855, 861 (6th Cir. 1992)). “[A]bsent unusual circumstances the stay ‘does not extend . . . to separate legal entities such as corporate affiliates, partners in debtor partnerships, or to codefendants in pending litigation.’” Id. (quoting Patton v. Bearden, 8 F.3d 343, 349 (6th Cir. 1993)). Accordingly, the Court will proceed to address the claims against the remaining defendants.

Section 362(a)(1) stays actions against the debtor, but does not stay claims against nonbankrupt codefendants.

Schueler v. Four Squarebiz, LLC · filed 2023-09-05(a)(1)

However, § 362(a)(1) applies only to actions against a debtor, and not to actions against non-bankrupt co- defendants.

Section 362(a) does not stay claims against non-debtor defendants merely because a defendant is in bankruptcy.

Estate of Tomi Kartchner v. County of Merced · filed 2024-12-10(a)

Because the Court is persuaded by In re Miller, it again declines to stay the case against the non-debtor defendants pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

Section 362(a) stays an action against a debtor corporation but permits the action to proceed against individual nondebtor defendants.

Erie County Employees' Retirement System v. Cutera, Inc. · filed 2025-09-30(a)

Because the present action can proceed only against the individual Defendants in light of the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), the Court resolves the present motion to dismiss only as it pertains to the individual Defendants.

Section 362(a) stays proceedings against a debtor upon a bankruptcy filing, but a nondebtor codefendant must show unusual circumstances to extend that stay to himself.

Insured Advocacy Group, LLC v. Aqua Docs Water Restoration · filed 2025-10-08(a)

Here, the Petition stays the action as to Ms. Mayhew. Mr. Devia, however, has not attempted to meet, let alone met, his burden to demonstrate why the stay should be extended to him, a non-debtor.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not apply to a nondebtor codefendant merely because another defendant filed for bankruptcy.

LeGrand v. Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc. · filed 2025-10-21(a)(1)

The automatic stay in section 362 is broad reaching, but it is not without limitations. It does not apply to non-debtors.

Section 362(a) automatically stays litigation against the debtor, but does not extend the stay to a nonbankrupt codefendant; staying the whole case requires the court to exercise its inherent authority.

Jasper Futch and John Doe v. Starboard with Cheese · filed 2025-12-01(a)

Therefore, any stay of these proceedings must be analyzed as an exercise of this Court’s inherent authority rather than as an operation of § 362(a).

Section 362 automatically stays claims against a defendant that has entered bankruptcy.

White · filed 2026-06-18

Accordingly, the claims against it are subject to automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362(a)(1) does not extend the automatic stay to a nondebtor codefendant merely because the plaintiff asserts the same claims against the debtor and codefendant for the same injury.

Warren Real Estate Holdings, Inc. v. Sinclair Construction Group · filed 2026-05-18(a)(1)

The simple fact that Plaintiff brings claims against both Sinclair and Megaslab for the same injury does not give rise to unusual circumstances.

Section 362 stays an appeal against a defendant that has filed for bankruptcy while the appeal may continue against other defendants.

Mock v. T.G. & Y. Stores Co. · filed 1992-07-24

Plaintiffs' appeal was therefore stayed as to T.G. & Y. under 11 U.S.C. § 362. This court then granted the motion of defendants Household International, Inc. and Household Merchandising, Inc. to continue the appeal as to those two defendants.

Section 362 stays an appeal against a debtor that has filed for bankruptcy while allowing the appeal to proceed against individual defendants.

Leahy v. Trans Jones · filed 1993-06-18

Trans Jones then filed a notice of the bankruptcy petition with this court, requesting the statutory stay required by 11 U.S.C. § 362. This court granted the stay and dismissed Trans Jones as a defendant in this appeal, permitting the appeal to proceed only as to the named individual defendants.

Section 362(a) does not bar discovery from a debtor to pursue claims against a non-debtor.

Mohindra v. Boghara · filed 2025-07-29(a)

Likewise, the ... automatic stay does not prohibit a party from obtaining discovery from a debtor to prosecute the party’s claims against a non-party.

Section 362’s automatic stay may extend to nonbankrupt codefendants when their claims are closely intertwined with the debtor’s and the debtor has agreed to defend and indemnify them.

Munro v. British American Oil Producing Company · filed 2017-11-08(a)(1)

The claims against Black Elk and its Codefendants are so intertwined that the trial court properly concluded that the bankruptcy stay applied to Movants as well.

Section 362(a)(3) may protect a debtor’s arguable interest in a non-debtor entity, and a factual dispute over whether proceedings against that entity violated the stay can preclude summary judgment.

PIRTEK USA, LLC v. Lager · filed 2023-07-20(a)(3)

Based on its review of the arguments advanced by the parties and the summary judgment record, the Court finds that there remains a material issue of fact for trial as to whether the automatic stay was violated by the Plaintiff’s choice to pursue a final hearing in the Arbitration after being provided a suggestion of bankruptcy for Mr. Lager. Thus, the Court will deny summary judgment on Defendants’ counterclaim Count V for violation of the automatic stay.

Section 362(a) ordinarily covered the claims against the debtor Wellpath alone.

Jones v. County of Fresno · filed 2024-12-16(a)

Here, the automatic stay under section 362(a) would generally apply only to claims against Defendant Wellpath and would not extend to Plaintiff’s claims against the non-debtor Defendants.

A judgment against a nondebtor that would only create an indemnity claim against the debtor is not itself a judgment against the debtor.

Ferrandino & Son, Inc. v. Sahene Construction LLC · filed 2023-04-19(a)(1)

In the case at bar, a judgment against Ferrandino in the Arbitration would not effectively be a judgment or finding against Sahene. Instead, it would trigger a claim for indemnity against ... Sahene, subject perhaps to Sahene’s defenses and counterclaims.

Section 362(b)(8) permits the IRS to send forms and letters that are necessary precursors to a notice of tax deficiency without violating the automatic stay.

In Re Hardy · filed 1984-05-08(b)(8)

Thus, all the documents except Form 5601 were merely necessary precursors, — or items precedent to the issuance of the tax deficiency notice. As such these forms and letters fall within the umbra of § 362(b)(8) and do not constitute violations of § 362(a).

Section 362(b)(8) allows a governmental unit to issue a tax deficiency notice despite the automatic stay.

Love v. Commissioner · filed 1984-12-10(b)(8)

However, as there is no stay of the issuance of a tax deficiency notice by a governmental unit, 11 U.S.C. sec. 362(b)(8) (Supp. III 1979) , respondent did not violate the Bankruptcy Codce.

Section 362(b)(9) excepts the sending of a tax deficiency notice from the automatic stay.

In Re Owens · filed 1987-01-05(b)(9)

We would point out that 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(9) provides that the sending of such a notice is an exception to the stay.