11 U.S.C. § 362

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay judicial proceedings initiated by the debtor.

Brown v. Armstrong · filed 1991-11-25(a)(1)

However, as the plain language of the statute suggests, and as no less than six circuits have concluded, the Code's automatic stay does not apply to judicial proceedings, such as this suit, that were initiated by the debtor.

Section 362(a)(1) stays proceedings on claims against the debtor, while the debtor’s own claims and claims against nondebtors may proceed; judicial actions on stayed claims are void ab initio absent relief from the stay.

Maritime Electric Company, Inc. v. United Jersey Bank · filed 1992-03-25(a)(1)

Applying these principles here, we hold that section 362 stayed only MNY's conversion claim against Son, but not MNY's conversion claim against MNJ or Son's claims against MNY and Father. Only MNY's conversion claim against Son is an action against a "debtor", and so only proceedings arising out of that claim were stayed automatically by the filing of Son's May 18, 1990 bankruptcy petition. ... Absent relief from the stay, judicial actions and proceedings against the debtor are void ab initio.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay an action commenced by the debtor before bankruptcy.

Overnite Transportation Co. v. Ryder/P-I-E Nationwide, Inc. · filed 1992-03-02(a)(1)

Although neither the Eighth Circuit nor this district has resolved this issue, other circuits and district courts conclude that the automatic stay does not apply to actions originally commenced by the bankrupt party. ... Moreover, because any recovery inures to the benefit of the estate, allowing a debtor’s action to progress during bankruptcy would facilitate estate distribution. ... Accordingly, the Court will address the settling defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Section 362(a)(1) applies only to claims commenced against the debtor and does not bar a motion to dismiss an action the debtor commenced.

Leach v. FDIC · filed 1993-01-28(a)(1)

11 U.S.C. § 362(a) (1) applies only to claims commenced against the debtor.

Section 362 does not stay a debtor’s pursuit of its own claim or defensive actions taken in response to that pursuit.

In Re United States Abatement Corp. · filed 1993-03-26(a)(1)

The automatic stay does not apply to an action by the debtor in which the debtor is in an offensive posture; the automatic stay only operates in actions where the debtor is in a defensive posture.

Section 362 stays actions against the debtor, but does not bar actions brought by the debtor for the benefit of the estate.

Mesiti v. Microdot, Inc. · filed 1993-06-28

11 U.S.C. § 362, though broad in scope, applies only to actions brought against the bankrupt debtor, not to those brought by the debtor, for the benefit of the estate.

Section 362(a)(1) bars a defendant from filing a postpetition motion to dismiss a lawsuit the debtor initiated before bankruptcy.

In Re General Associated Investors Ltd. Partnership · filed 1993-10-05(a)(1)

Thus, the Taxing Authorities were in violation of the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) when the motion to dismiss was filed although Debtor initiated the action in the Tax Court.

Section 362(a) does not stay removal of an action pursuing the debtor’s claims when the opposing party no longer holds counterclaims against the debtor at the time of removal.

McMillan v. MBank Fort Worth, N.A. · filed 1993-10-11(a)

Thus, the removal of the action to federal court constituted a continuing proceeding of plaintiffs' claims against the FDIC-Receiver, rather than a continuing proceeding of MBank's counterclaims against the plaintiffs. We therefore hold that removal of the action against the FDIC-Receiver was proper.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay the automatic dismissal for nonpayment of taxes of a tax petition initiated by the debtor.

Scott v. County of Hennepin · filed 1993-11-19(a)(1)

We hold, therefore, for the reasons above given, that subparagraph (a)(1) of the automatic stay provision does not stay the dismissal of Carson’s tax petitions for nonpayment of taxes.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay an adversary proceeding commenced by the debtor, even when the debtor later appeals.

Nielsen v. Price · filed 1994-02-23(a)(1)

Accordingly, § 362(a)(1) did not operate to stay this adversary proceeding commenced by the debtor-plaintiffs.

Section 362(a) does not stay a debtor’s offensive counterclaim or a creditor’s motion to reinstate and seek summary judgment on that claim.

United States Abatement Corp. v. Mobil Exploration & Producing U.S. Inc. · filed 1994-11-17(a)

If a debtor's offensive claims are not subject to the automatic stay, a fortiori a creditor's motion to reinstate and seek summary judgment of such non-stayed claims is not subject to the automatic stay.

Section 362(a) does not prevent a defendant from defending a prepetition lawsuit brought by the debtor, and the defendant need not obtain relief from the automatic stay to do so.

Gordon v. Whitmore (In Re Merrick) · filed 1994-12-08(a)(1), (a)(3)

Because a defendant need not seek relief from the automatic stay in order to defend himself against a lawsuit commenced by the debtor, we reverse.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not bar a creditor’s counterclaim asserted in response to a trustee’s adversary proceeding.

Grant v. Florida Power Corp. (In Re American Fabricators, Inc.) · filed 1995-08-01(a)(1)

This Court finds that Whitlock’s counterclaim is not subject to the automatic stay.

Section 362 does not stay a defendant’s efforts to defend against and obtain dismissal of a prepetition claim initiated by the debtor when the defendant had obtained no prepetition monetary judgment.

White v. City of Santee (In Re White) · filed 1995-09-08(a)(1), (a)(3)

Since Debtor initiated the proceedings, and the City had not obtained a monetary judgment prepetition, Debtor’s cross-complaint in the ensuing state court litigation was not stayed by § 362. As a result, we hold that the City’s demurrer and dismissal of the cross-complaint was not subject to the automatic stay provisions.

The automatic stay does not apply to judicial proceedings initiated by the debtor.

Montgomery v. Milam · filed 1995-11-22(a)(1)

Provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, as to an automatic stay, do not apply to judicial proceedings that may be initiated by the debtor.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay adjudication of claims brought by the debtor against another party, including summary judgment against the debtor on those claims.

Northwood Flavors Co. v. Dollar Bank, Federal Savings Bank (In Re Northwood Flavors, Inc.) · filed 1996-11-06(a)(1)

The claims asserted by debtor against Dollar are not actions “against the debtor”, as is required by § 362(a)(1).

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay a debtor’s pursuit of summary judgment on its own claim in a suit initially brought against it.

In Re Voluntary Purchasing Groups, Inc. · filed 1996-12-19(a)(1)

Therefore, this Court holds that the automatic stay provision of § 362 does not apply to VPG’s motion for Summary Judgment filed in Federal District Court and VPG can pursue its Summary Judgment motion without having to be granted relief from the automatic stay.

Section 362(a)(3) does not treat a party’s defense of a proceeding initiated by the debtor as an exercise of control over estate property.

Krystal Cadillac, Oldsmobile, GMC Truck, Inc. v. General Motors Corp. (In Re Krystal Cadillac, Oldsmobile, GMC Truck, In · filed 1997-02-03(a)(3)

GM’s defense of an action instituted by Debtor does not constitute an attempt to “exercise control over the property of the estate” within the meaning of section 362(a)(3).

Section 362(a)(1) generally stays proceedings against the debtor, but does not stay actions brought by the debtor for the benefit of the bankruptcy estate.

Bateman & Slade, Inc. v. Costello · filed 1997-02-10(a)(1)

With rare exceptions inapposite here, the automatic stay provision only prohibits the commencement or continuation of actions or proceedings “against the debtor.” ... The stay does not apply to actions brought “by the debtor which would inure to the benefit of the bankruptcy estate.”

Section 362(a) does not stay an action brought by the debtor.

Pal Air International, Inc. v. Porter · filed 1997-04-09(a)

Section 362(a) only applies when a creditor files an action against a debtor. It “does not address actions brought by the debtor which would inure to the benefit of the bankruptcy estate.” Carley Capital Group v. Fireman’s. Fund Insurance Co., 889 F.2d 1126, 1127 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Since Pal Air, the debtor, brought the action in this case, section 362(a) is inapplicable.

Section 362 does not stay a lawsuit brought by the debtor, and the defendant may defend without filing a counterclaim.

Mitchell v. Fukuoka Daiei Hawks Baseball Club (In Re Mitchell) · filed 1997-05-30(a)(1)

The Section 362 stay does not apply where, as here, the debtor is the plaintiff in a lawsuit.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay a lawsuit initiated by the debtor, including the court’s ruling on the debtor’s post-trial motion.

Conley v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. · filed 1997-10-06(a)(1)

The automatic stay provisions of § 362 do not preclude the Court from ruling on plaintiff's pending post-trial motion.

Section 362(a)(1) stays proceedings against the debtor, but does not stay an action brought by the debtor.

Miklaski v. United States · filed 1997-12-08(a)(1)

As the plain language of the statute indicates, plaintiffs bankruptcy petition did not result in the stay of this action because it was brought by, and not against, the debtor.

Section 362(a) stays proceedings to recover prepetition claims against a debtor, but does not stay the debtor’s effort to recover from a settlement fund.

Olick v. Parker & Parsley Petroleum Company · filed 1998-05-27(a)

The district court did not err in denying Olick's motion to stay the proceedings. As the district court correctly pointed out, the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362 enjoins actions "against the debtor" (emphasis supplied). It prevents the commencement or continuation, after a bankruptcy petition has been filed, of lawsuits and proceedings to recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the filing of the petition. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a); Koolik v. Markowitz, 40 F.3d 567 (2d Cir.1994) (per curiam). In the case at bar, the opposite occurred: No party sought to recover a claim "against" Olick; rather, Olick sought to recover from the settlement fund.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay dismissal of a lawsuit originally filed by the debtor because that suit is not a proceeding against the debtor.

Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Denton County Appraisal District · filed 2000-03-30(a)(1)

Here, Appellant initiated the suit, which is not an “action or proceeding against the debtor.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). Accordingly, the automatic stay did not prohibit the trial court from dismissing Appellant’s case for want of prosecution.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay a proceeding brought by the debtor against another party when no counterclaim is asserted against the debtor.

Katz v. Robinson Silverman Pearce Aronsohn & Berman, L. L. P. · filed 2000-11-16(a)(1)

11 USC § 362 (a) (1) precludes “the commencement or continuation * * * of a * * * proceeding * * * to recover a claim against the debtor.” The claim in this action is prosecuted by, not against, the debtor, whose assets are not threatened.

Section 362 does not stay an appeal from a Tax Court proceeding initiated by the debtor because the automatic stay applies to proceedings against the debtor.

Rhone-Poulenc Surfactants & Specialties, L.P. v. Commissioner · filed 2001-05-01(a)(1)

We determined before oral ar gument that Bankruptcy S362 does not in fact stay the appeal, for that provision stays only actions or proceedings "against the debtor" (emphasis added). Here the proceeding before the Tax Court was brought by the debtor (or, more accurately, by its corporate predecessor).

Section 362(a) bars reopening a malpractice action against a debtor while the debtor’s bankruptcy is pending.

Mendoza v. McKnight · filed 2001-05-08(a)

Because McKnight’s bankruptcy was pending, re-opening the malpractice action violated the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 362 stays proceedings against a bankrupt defendant, and pending motions against that defendant may be denied without prejudice until the bankruptcy court allows the claims to proceed.

Caldwell-Baker Co. v. Southern Illinois Railcar Co. · filed 2002-06-18

Defendant SIRC filed a notice of bankruptcy in this case indicating that an automatic stay is in effect pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362, which prohibits continuing any proceedings against defendant SIRC (Doc. 445). Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 14) against defendant SIRC, and two of plaintiffs' Motions to Strike (Docs. 378 and 381), are denied as moot without prejudice to be reasserted, if at all, only if and when the bankruptcy court allows plaintiffs to continue to pursue their claims against defendant SIRC.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not apply to suits brought by the debtor.

In Re: William L. Hall, Debtor-Appellee. Appeal Of: Enodis Corporation · filed 2002-09-18

Much of that litigation involved Consolidated or Hall as a plaintiff, and the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362 does not apply to suits by the debtor.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay the prosecution of claims brought by the debtor.

Covanta Onondaga Ltd. v. Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency · filed 2002-09-23(a)(1)

The automatic stay in 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1), does not stay the prosecution of claims brought by the debtor.

Section 362(a) stays proceedings against a debtor but does not stay claims the debtor brings or may bring.

Community Management Corp. v. Weitz (In Re Community Management Corp.) · filed 2002-10-11(a)

At the February 17, 2000 hearing at which Tirana advised Judge Harrington of the bankruptcy filing, the court incorrectly stated that the automatic stay also extended to claims that CMC brought or might bring, as opposed to proceedings brought against it.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not apply to litigation commenced by the debtor before its Chapter 7 petition was filed.

Estate of Michael Angelo Corry Inn, Inc. v. Vega · filed 2002-11-19

The automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362, are not applicable here because the litigation was commenced by Michael Angelo Corry Inn, Inc., the debtor, before the Chapter 7 petition was filed.

Section 362(a) does not stay a debtor’s own tort action against a non-creditor or the defendant’s summary judgment motion in that action.

Kilmer v. Flocar, Inc. · filed 2002-12-18(a)

Although the scope of the automatic stay is broad, the language of § 362(a) and the authority cited below confirms that the statute stays only proceedings against a “debtor”-the term used by the statute itself. ... Defendants’ instant motion is not a counterclaim seeking property from or control over the plaintiffs estate; it is simply a motion for summary judgment without consequence or effect as to plaintiffs Chapter 7 Bankruptcy filing. Plaintiffs Chapter 7 Bankruptcy filing does not stay plaintiffs tort action.

Section 362 automatically stays proceedings against a debtor upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition until relief from the stay is granted.

Natural Solutions Corp. v. Terrabind International, Inc. · filed 2003-03-19

We agree with petitioners that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law in compelling petitioner NSC to produce the documents in question because all proceedings against NSC were automatically stayed following the filing of its bankruptcy petition and no relief from the automatic stay had been granted.

Section 362(a)(1) stays actions against a bankruptcy debtor, while actions initiated by the debtor remain outside the stay on appeal.

Oakwood Acceptance Corp. v. Tsinigini · filed 2003-04-23(a)(1)

We therefore adopt the rule that an automatic stay applies solely to actions against a bankruptcy debtor, and not to those initiated by a bankruptcy debtor. ... But we agree with the majority rule and will look to initial proceedings to determine whether a case is brought against the bankruptcy debtor.

Section 362(a) does not stay an appeal commenced by a debtor who files for bankruptcy while the appeal is pending.

Wilson v. Broadband Wireless International Corp. (In Re Broadband Wireless International Corp.) · filed 2003-06-26(a)

This Court is not stayed under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) ... from entering an Order and Judgment in the present appeal because the appeal was commenced by Wilson.

Section 362(a) does not stay a proceeding brought by the debtor to challenge an employment termination when it involves no claim or encumbrance against the debtor, estate, assets, or property.

McGee v. Spirit Mountain Gaming, Inc. · filed 2004-01-29(a)

The Tribe’s Employment Action Review Ordinance does not involve any claims, offsets or any type of encumbrance against or upon Petitioner, his estate, his assets or property. The Court finds, therefore, that by the express terms of the bankruptcy statute, the present case is not subject to the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362.

The automatic stay bars a creditor from collecting a judgment against a debtor but does not preclude the debtor from suing the creditor.

Sukens v. Wilkes · filed 2004-03-11

The defendant is barred from collecting on the judgment he had against the plaintiff because of the automatic stay put into effect by 11 U.S.C. § 362, which stays in effect until the bankruptcy case is closed. I am not aware of any provision that precludes a plaintiff from bringing suit against one of its creditors.

Section 362(a) does not stay post-petition defensive actions in a pre-petition lawsuit brought by the debtor.

Stanwyck v. Beilinson · filed 2004-04-28(a)

Mr. Stanwyck’s bankruptcy filing did not stay the proceedings as to him. While 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) stays litigation against the debtor that was or could have been brought before the bankruptcy, the stay does not apply to post-petition defensive actions in a pre-petition lawsuit brought by a debtor.

Section 362(a)(1)'s automatic stay does not prevent entry of judgment in an action commenced by the debtor.

In Re Intercorp International, Ltd. · filed 2004-05-24(a)(1)

The filing stayed the sale, but did not stay the entry of judgment. The debtor was the plaintiff in the California action, and the automatic stay did not apply.

Section 362(a) does not toll the limitations period for a debtor's affirmative malpractice action because the automatic stay applies only to actions against the debtor.

Heck-Dance v. Cardona-Jimenez · filed 2004-06-15(a)

First, Heck cannot rely on the automatic stay provision in 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) because it applies only to actions "against" the debtor.

The automatic stay ordinarily does not apply to litigation initiated by the debtor, including a defendant’s motion for summary judgment in the debtor’s tort suit.

McNeil v. Powers · filed 2004-09-09(a)(1)

But the stay ordinarily does not apply to litigation initiated by the debtor, such as the tort suit Mr. McNeil filed against Mr. Powers.

Section 362(a)(1)'s automatic stay does not stay proceedings on a cross-complaint brought by the debtor.

ECC Construction Inc. v. Oak Park Calabasas Homeowners Ass'n · filed 2004-09-29(a)(1)

It does not stay proceedings on a cross-complaint by the debtor.

Section 362's automatic stay does not extend to lawsuits initiated by the debtor.

Crosby v. Monroe County · filed 2004-12-28

Crosby’s bankruptcy filing does not prevent us from adjudicating the merits of this appeal. The automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362, does not extend to lawsuits initiated by the debtor.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay a bankrupt debtor's pursuit of its own counterclaim.

VC v. Dakota Co. · filed 2005-01-26(a)(1)

The automatic stay provision did not preclude the bankrupt Dakota from pursuing its counterclaim. Therefore, the district court did not err in allowing the jury to consider this counterclaim.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not apply to actions brought by the debtor.

Sub-Acute Manag. Ser. v. Columbia Phy. Ser. · filed 2005-02-09

First, although it is true that there is an automatic stay of most proceedings when a company files a bankruptcy petition, that automatic stay is inapplicable to cases or proceedings brought by the debtor.

Section 362(a)'s automatic stay applies to proceedings against the debtor and does not prevent the debtor from pursuing its own claims.

González Santiago v. González Caruso · filed 2005-02-09(a)

Como se sabe, el “automatic stay”, 11 USC 362, sólo atiende a acciones de terceros dirigidas contra el ente protegido por la Corte de Quiebra, en este caso Elíseo Morales García y Maribel Mena Meléndez y la sociedad legal de gananciales compuesta por ambos y para nada impide que estos últimos actúen en defensa de lo que alegan ser sus derechos.

Section 362(a) stays claims against the debtor in a mixed action but does not toll the appeal deadline for a final judgment on the debtor’s own affirmative claims.

Halmar Robicon Group, Inc. v. Toshiba International Corp. · filed 2005-03-07(a)

The subsequent motions to alter and amend the judgment related only to Toshiba’s declaratory judgment claims against Robicon, which were the only portion of the case subject to the automatic bankruptcy stay. We find no law, nor has any been presented, that suggests that the time to file the notice of appeal from final judgment on that part of the case brought by the debtor is tolled in these circumstances.

The automatic stay does not prevent a debtor from prosecuting a lawsuit the debtor initiated.

Polk v. Southwest Crossing Homeowners Ass'n · filed 2005-04-12(a)(1)

Although appellees filed a suggestion of bankruptcy in this lawsuit, automatically staying the case, and Polk's bankruptcy proceedings were not dismissed until August of 2003, Polk still could have prosecuted her suit. This is so because Polk initiated this lawsuit and a plaintiff involved in bankruptcy proceedings can still prosecute the lawsuit.

The automatic stay applies to actions against the debtor, not actions brought by the debtor.

Pewitt v. Roberts, Unpublished Decision (8-18-2005) · filed 2005-08-18

First, the automatic stay afforded by the bankruptcy code, 11 U.S.C. § 362 , only enjoins actions against the debtor, not actions by the debtor. Olick v. Parker Parsley Petroleum Co. (2d Cir. 1998), 145 F.3d 513 , 516 . Therefore, the existence of the bankruptcy proceeding did not require the trial court to stay these proceedings.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay an appeal in an action initiated by the debtor or toll the notice-of-appeal deadline, even when that action is consolidated with a creditor’s action against the debtor.

Dwiggins v. Elk Horn Bank & Trust Co. · filed 2005-12-08(a)(1)

As demonstrated by our decision in Pennington, we agree with those courts that have held that section 362 is only applicable to proceedings against the debtor, both in the lower court and on appeal. ... Thus, applying our holding in Knowlton and the Supreme Court’s holding in Johnson, we cannot accept the Dwigginses’ argument that the order of consolidation in this, case somehow changed the procedural posture of their suit against the Bank. Simply put, the action which is the subject of this appeal was one initiated by the debtors and, thus, the bankruptcy stay is inapplicable. ... The provision of section 362 is not applicable and did not serve to toll the time the Dwigginses had to file their notice of appeal.

Section 362(a)'s automatic stay does not stay a state-court action brought by the debtor.

Hunnewell v. Palm Beach County · filed 2006-04-12(a)

The irony is that the trial court incorrectly denied the County's first motion to dismiss by misconstruing the federal provision for stays of state court proceedings during bankruptcy proceedings.

The automatic stay under § 362(a) applies to proceedings against the debtor and does not prevent the debtor from bringing suit against other parties.

DiMaio Family Pizza & Luncheonette, Inc. v. Charter Oak Fire Insurance · filed 2006-05-30(a)

However, that section provides that a petition in bankruptcy stays the commencement or continuation of all nonbankruptcy judicial proceedings “against the debtor.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). The stay is designed to give “breathing room” to the debtor, ... and has absolutely no effect on the debtors’ ability to bring suit against other parties.

Section 362's automatic stay does not apply to actions brought by the debtor.

Abibo v. SUNSET MORTG. CO., LP · filed 2007-01-09

The language of the statute clearly does not apply the automatic stay to actions by the debtor, such as this one.

Section 362's automatic stay does not apply to a lawsuit brought by the debtor and therefore does not preserve the timeliness of that lawsuit.

Estate of Carr Ex Rel. Carr v. United States · filed 2007-03-02(a)

The plain language and legislative history of section 362 make clear that she is not entitled to an automatic stay with respect to the filing of her lawsuit against Defendant in this Court. Accordingly, section 362 does not save the timeliness of Plaintiffs complaint.

The automatic stay does not apply to a lawsuit brought by the debtor or prohibit a defendant from pursuing a motion to dismiss that lawsuit.

Bill Heard Chevrolet Corp. v. Hisle · filed 2007-04-10(a)(1), (a)(3)

On appeal, the district court reversed, holding (a) that the automatic stay does not apply to a lawsuit instituted by the debtor; and (b) that a motion to dismiss the debtor’s lawsuit is neither an “action or proceeding against the debtor” under § 362(a)(1) nor an “act to obtain possession of or exercise control over property of the estate” under § 363(a)(3). ... Because we conclude the reasoning that supports the district court’s judgment has been correctly articulated by the district court, issuance of a detailed written opinion by this court would be duplicative and serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is, upon the reasoning employed in its opinion issued on February 10, 2006, hereby AFFIRMED.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not apply to debtor-initiated sales or transfers of property, and outside parties cannot invoke its protections when the debtor or trustee declines to do so.

DeVeny v. Hadaller · filed 2007-07-10(a)

But “[s]ection 362’s automatic stay does not apply to sales or transfers of property initiated by the debtor.” ... “Consequently, if the debtor or the trustee chooses not to invoke the protections of § 362, no other party may attack any acts in violation of the automatic stay.” ... Thus, Hadaller and Simons may not invoke its protection.

Section 362(a) stays proceedings against the debtor and does not toll the time to file a notice of claim for an action benefiting the bankruptcy estate.

McCord v. City of New York · filed 2008-02-08(a)

Although plaintiff suggests that he was unable to file a notice of claim because an automatic stay was in effect, the language of 11 USC § 362 (a) confirms that the statute stays only proceedings against a “debtor” ... Therefore, plaintiffs time to file a notice of claim was not tolled.

Section 362(a) does not stay dismissal of a proceeding initiated by the debtor.

Adler v. Bell · filed 2009-01-05(a)

If the debtor brings the initial claim, § 362 has no effect.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay claims or counterclaims brought by the debtor because they are not actions against the debtor.

M.D. Kenneth A. Thomas v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield · filed 2009-05-28(a)(1)

Under the plain language of the statute, Jemsek’s counterclaims against Blue Cross are not “against the debtor,” and thus were not subject to the automatic stay.

Section 362(a) does not stay an action that the debtor commenced after filing for bankruptcy.

Chicago Title Insurance v. Mary B. · filed 2010-01-04(a)

In any event, Chicago concedes, and we agree, that the automatic stay provisions of the United States Bankruptcy Code do not apply to Aegis because it commenced this action as the original “use” plaintiff and it already had filed for bankruptcy prior to the initiation of the Priority Suit.

Section 362’s automatic stay applies to proceedings against the debtor and does not stay claims the debtor brings against another party.

Quinteros v. Aurora Loan Services · filed 2010-09-30

The automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362 is in effect. “The automatic stay is applicable only to proceedings against the debtor.” ... Plaintiffs claims in this case are unaffected by the stay.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay a taxpayer-debtor’s own property tax assessment challenge, even when the resulting judgment increases the property value and taxes assessed.

Eden Prairie Mall, LLC v. County of Hennepin · filed 2011-05-11(a)(1)

In summary, we conclude that a petition under chapter 278 is initiated by a taxpayer-debtor for the benefit of the taxpayer-debtor, and therefore is not subject to the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362. When the taxpayer initiates a petition under chapter 278, it is possible that the overall value of the property and the amount of taxes due may increase, decrease, or stay the same. In any case, the taxpayer assumes that risk. Thus, the tax court is not barred by the automatic stay provision from entering judgment increasing the market value and the tax assessments for the property.

Section 362(a) automatically stays proceedings against a defendant who files for bankruptcy.

DARIANO v. Morgan Hill Unified Sch. Dist. · filed 2011-11-08(a)

Accordingly, all proceedings against Defendant Boden are stayed as a matter of law.

Section 362 does not stay an appeal from an attorney-fee order obtained on a motion brought by the debtor, because that proceeding is not an action against the debtor.

Fountas v. Microcomputer Resources, Inc. · filed 2012-05-23

Wé note that there was no need to obtain relief from the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362. The underlying final order on appeal was not an action against debtor Tolz, but the result of a motion for attorney’s fees and costs brought by Tolz.

Section 362 does not stay an appeal in an action initiated and maintained by the debtor when no claims are asserted against the debtor.

Madison v. Groseth · filed 2012-06-05

We decide the automatic stay does not apply because this appeal concerns an action initiated and maintained by the debtor and does not involve any claims asserted against Madison.

Section 362 automatically stays the continuation of judicial proceedings against a debtor after a bankruptcy petition is filed.

Initiatives Healthcare, Inc. et al. v. Divlend Equipment Leasing · filed 2013-05-08

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362, an automatic stay is imposed prohibiting the continuation of any judicial action or proceeding against a debtor.

Section 362(a) does not stay an appeal arising from a claim originally brought by the debtor against another party.

Baack v. Horizon Womens Care Professional LLC (In re Horizon Womens Care Professional LLC) · filed 2014-02-14(a)

Dr. Baack’s appeal is not subject to the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) because the pending appeal concerns a claim that the Debtor and Dr. Oster originally brought against Dr. Baack.

Section 362 stays only proceedings originally brought against the debtor; a debtor’s intervention in a proceeding does not make the stay apply to that proceeding or its appeal.

Tidwell v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. · filed 2016-12-20

As the appellees indicated in their response, the automatic stay provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362 applies, by its terms, only to proceedings against the debtor. ... Here, Tidwell intervened in the Chapter 11 proceeding, and so the proceeding was not "originally brought against him.” Accordingly, we may decide the merits of his appeal.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay a proceeding that the debtor initiated and appealed.

Chaput v. Scafidi · filed 2017-06-14(a)(1)

Here, Chaput was the plaintiff and also the appellant (or petitioner in the Appellate Division), so the automatic stay does not apply.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay a proceeding initiated by the debtor because it applies to proceedings against the debtor.

My Baps Construction Corporation v. The City of Chicago · filed 2017-09-29(a)(1)

Unlike the workers’ compensation proceedings in Williams Awning Co., the dispute resolution proceedings was initiated by My Baps when it invoked the Contracts’ disputes resolution procedure in its October 28, 2011, letter to CDOT Commissioner Ware. ... Therefore, the circuit court did not err in finding that the City did not violate the bankruptcy court’s automatic stay order.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay a proceeding initiated by the debtor to resolve a contract dispute.

My Baps Construction Corp. v. City of Chicago · filed 2017-12-22(a)(1)

Unlike the workers’ compensation proceedings in Williams Awning Co., the dispute resolution proceedings were initiated by My Baps when it invoked the Contracts’ disputes resolution procedure in its October 28, 2011, letter to CDOT Commissioner Ware. ... Therefore, the circuit court did not err in finding that the City did not violate the bankruptcy court’s automatic stay order.

Section 362(a) stays judicial proceedings against the debtor, but does not stay a lawsuit brought by the debtor.

Jorrie v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust · filed 2018-07-02(a)

Jorrie’s July 2017 bankruptcy filing did not trigger an automatic stay of the present litigation. That is because Jorrie is the plaintiff in this case, and 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)’s automatic stay applies only to judicial proceedings that are “against the debtor.”

Section 362(a)(1)'s automatic stay does not apply to a proceeding brought by the debtor that benefits the debtor's estate.

United of Omaha Life Insurance Company v. Acass Systems, LLC · filed 2019-06-14(a)(1)

Beyond that, it's also true that because the automatic bankruptcy stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) applies to the "commencement or continuation" of a proceeding "against the debtor," it doesn't apply to a proceeding brought by the debtor that inures to the benefit of the debtor's estate.

Section 362 does not stay an action initiated by the debtor when there is no counterclaim against the debtor.

Fishback v. Edmiston · filed 2019-12-18

The Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay provision, 11 U.S.C. section 362, does not apply to actions initiated by the debtor which involve no counterclaim against the debtor.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay an action or appeal brought by the debtor.

In Re: Paul R. Koch · filed 2020-03-18(a)(1)

First, Appellant’s filing of a new Chapter 13 bankruptcy does not entitle him to an automatic stay. ... Accordingly, “courts consistently hold that actions brought by a debtor are not subject to the automatic stay.”

Section 362(a) does not stay judicial proceedings initiated by the debtor.

Chicago Bridge and Iron Company, N.V. v. Fairbanks Joint Crafts Council, AFL-CIO · filed 2020-04-03(a)

Regardless, the Court agrees with Defendants that the automatic stay provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) does not apply to judicial proceedings that are initiated by the debtor.

Section 362(a) stays a bankrupt defendant’s pending motions to dismiss during its bankruptcy proceeding.

Kyle v. Linden Care, LLC · filed 2020-04-13(a)

RDC’s motions to dismiss (Doc. Nos. 21, 22, 38) are stayed during its bankruptcy proceeding (Doc. No. 45), pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

Section 362(a) automatically stays proceedings against a defendant who has filed a bankruptcy petition.

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 98 HEALTH & WELFARE FUND v. NEW SIGN INDUSTRIES, INC. · filed 2021-02-22(a)

Defendant Ronald Brodie’s petition for bankruptcy—currently pending in the District of New Jersey— operates as an automatic stay on the instant proceedings with respect to Brodie.

Section 362 automatically stays proceedings against a defendant that has filed for bankruptcy.

Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Poarch Band of Creek Indians · filed 2021-03-15

Because the filing of such notice imposed an automatic stay of the proceedings against Martin Construction, see 11 U.S.C. § 362, this opinion does not further address the company.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay counterclaims asserted by the debtor against other parties.

Paisley Park Enterprises, Inc. v. Boxill · filed 2021-04-19(a)(1)

Notably, although the claims that Plaintiffs asserted against Staley were subject to an automatic stay for approximately eighteen months while Staley’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition was pending, that automatic stay did not apply to the counterclaims asserted by Staley against Plaintiffs.

Section 362(a) stays the continuation of a judicial proceeding against a debtor in bankruptcy.

First American Title Insurance Company v. Borniva · filed 2022-03-08(a)

The bankruptcy code’s automatic stay provision “‘operates as a stay, applicable to all entities, of the commencement or continuation . . . of a judicial administrative, or other action or proceeding against the debtor.’” Myers v. McNamee, Hosea, Jernigan, Kim, Greenan, & Lynch, P.A., No. 18-cv-3460-PX, 2020 WL 758151, at *4 (D. Md. Feb. 14, 2020), reconsideration denied, 2020 WL 1064810 (D. Md. Mar. 5, 2020) (citing 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)). Thus, this case is stayed as to Maydanik.

The automatic stay does not prohibit actions taken to defend against claims brought by the debtor in pending state court litigation.

Lynn Beth Baum · filed 2022-11-22(a)(1), (a)(3)

Respondents’ actions at issue all were done in response to, and in defense against, actions taken by the Debtor in the pending state court litigation. As such, the Respondents’ actions were not violations of the automatic stay.

Section 362(a) automatically stays a pending judicial proceeding against a debtor when the debtor files a bankruptcy petition, including a mandamus proceeding against the debtor.

in Re Sayers Construction, LLC · filed 2022-12-22(a)

Accordingly, this mandamus proceeding is stayed. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) (establishing that debtor’s filing of bankruptcy petition imposes automatic stay of judicial proceedings that are “[a] continuation . . . of a judicial . . . or other action or proceeding against the debtor”); cf. Tex. R. App. P. 8.2; see also In re Hassell, No. 01-14-00996-CV, 2018 WL 1003802, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 22, 2018, orig. proceeding) (reinstating mandamus proceeding upon relators’ petition).

Section 362(a)’s automatic stay does not apply to lawsuits initiated by the debtor.

In Re: James A. and Elizabeth C. Zachman · filed 2023-01-12(a)

Second, it is undisputed that Debtor James A. Zachman initiated the actions that allegedly resulted in the violation of the automatic stay. ... Thus, the court concludes that the automatic stay would not apply even if the membership interest in Real Data Services was still part of the bankruptcy estate at the time the actions were commenced.

Section 362(a) prevents a court from taking further action on claims against a debtor while the automatic stay remains in effect.

Bell v. Washington · filed 2023-03-30(a)

The operation of the automatic stay precludes the Court from taking any action relative to Corizon. Accordingly, it cannot consider the R&Rs, or Bell’s objections to them, relating to Corizon. It will hold these submissions in abeyance until the automatic stay relating to Corizon is lifted.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not apply to actions initiated by the debtor.

filed: · filed 2023-04-20(a)

Not only was there no bankruptcy stay in effect at any material time, but also the automatic stay is not applicable to actions initiated by the debtor.

Section 362 stays proceedings against a debtor during bankruptcy, so pending motions against the debtor cannot be decided until the stay is lifted or terminated.

PWV Consultants LLC v. Chebil Realty LLC · filed 2023-08-28

Because the case remains stayed against the sole remaining Defendant, Mr. Chebil, the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate docket entries no. 58 and 98 without prejudice to renewal against Mr. Chebil in the event the bankruptcy stay is lifted or terminated.

Section 362(a) stays proceedings against a debtor in bankruptcy, requiring a court to hold in abeyance a ruling on that debtor’s summary judgment motion while the stay applies.

Oryang v. Hamm (INMATE 2) · filed 2024-03-26(a)

After carefully reviewing the record in this case, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and the Plaintiff’s objections, the Court concludes that a ruling on the Recommendation’s disposition of Corizon’s motion for summary judgment (doc. 49) is due to be held in abeyance due to the automatic stay of all proceedings against Corizon pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), that the remainder of the Recommendation is due to be adopted as modified herein, and that the remaining motions for summary judgment (docs. 50, 52, 53, 87, 92, and 104) are due to be granted.

Section 362(a) does not automatically stay proceedings in which the debtor appears as a plaintiff, even when the claims belong to the bankruptcy estate.

JJ Arch LLC · filed 2024-06-10(a)

However, because Section 362(a) does not, by its own terms, stay proceedings where a debtor appears as a party-plaintiff, these claims are not automatically subject to the automatic stay.

Section 362(a) automatically stays proceedings against a debtor once the debtor files a bankruptcy petition.

Estate of Derek Valentine v. County of Merced · filed 2024-11-20(a)

Accordingly, all proceedings in this matter against Defendant Wellpath shall be stayed pursuant to Section 362(a) of Title 11, United States Code.

Section 362(a) automatically stays proceedings against a debtor, but does not stay an action the debtor initiated.

RISIS v. SOLAKIAN · filed 2025-01-21(a)

The proceedings in this matter are not “against the debtor,” because the debtor here is Plaintiff, who initiated such proceedings. Therefore, the automatic bankruptcy stay under Section 362 of the bankruptcy code is not applicable.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay a lawsuit brought by the debtor merely because the debtor files for bankruptcy.

Monplaisir v. The City of New York · filed 2025-04-16(a)(1)

Plaintiff's bankruptcy status alone does not prevent the litigation at hand from proceeding.

Section 362 automatically stays proceedings against a bankruptcy debtor, but does not stay proceedings the debtor initiated.

Muy · filed 2026-04-02

Section 362 automatically stays proceedings against debtors who have filed for bankruptcy; it does not stay proceedings initiated by such debtors.

Section 362(a)(3) permits a defendant in a debtor-initiated proceeding to take purely defensive action, including seeking to open a default judgment, without obtaining stay relief.

Tarani A. Johnson · filed 2026-05-29(a)(3)

Therefore, despite the sensible argument that a judgment is a substantial and valuable piece of estate property and should be guarded by the automatic stay, precedent dictates that state court defendants in debtor-initiated proceedings may take strictly defensive actions—including those that would undermine a judgment—without violating the automatic stay.

Section 362(a) automatically stays proceedings against a debtor who files for bankruptcy relief.

North Dakota Public Service Commission v. Central States Grain, Inc. · filed 1985-07-22(a)

Thus, the proceedings against the Hepples in this case were automatically stayed under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay a debtor-initiated appeal seeking redetermination of tax deficiencies because the appeal is not against the debtor.

George I. Reid, Carolyn M. Reid v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · filed 1989-06-28(a)(1)

This appeal is not stayed by the petition for bankruptcy, since the action was not "against the debtor" but was initiated by the debtor to seek redetermination of tax deficiencies. See 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(a)(1); Freeman v. Commissioner, 799 F.2d 1091 (5th Cir.1986).

Section 362(a) stays proceedings against a Chapter 11 debtor, so a judgment in a suit with multiple defendants may apply only to the other defendants.

Sibby v. Ownit Mortgage Solutions, Inc. · filed 2007-07-06(a)

On December 29, 2006, Ownit filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code and all proceedings against it are currently stayed. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). Consequently, our judgment applies exclusively to defendant Countrywide.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay an appeal from a proceeding the debtor initiated.

Thiel v. Thiel · filed 1989-11-22(a)(1)

Bankruptcy Code 11 U.S.C. § 362 [ (a)(1) ] automatically stays all judicial proceedings “against the debtor.” ... This is an appeal from a proceeding initiated by the appellant, thus the proceeding was not one originally brought against the debtor / appellant.

Section 362(a) does not prevent entry of judgment in a proceeding brought by a debtor, because the automatic stay applies to proceedings against a debtor.

Destec Energy, Inc. v. Southern California Gas Co. · filed 1998-02-02(a)

This court finds that section 362(a) does not preclude the entry of final judgment.

Section 362(a)(4) permits approval of a stipulation treating a debtor’s postpetition security agreement as not void when the debtor actively participated and the law on avoidance is unsettled.

Decker v. Liu (In re Trans-Eagle Corp.) · filed 1999-06-03(a)(4)

In this case the debtor was an active participant. The present fact pattern differs from Schwartz and Shamblin, and from McConville as well. It is therefore not clear what approach to avoidance the Ninth Circuit would take were it to have the present case before it. ... Based on the foregoing the court believes there was a valid legal basis for the stipulation between the parties. As such, the court will not disturb its prior ruling.

A voluntary Chapter 7 filing stays proceedings against the debtor.

N.A. Sales Company, Inc. v. Lee · filed 2019-09-18

Defendant Yi Soo John Kim, the president and owner of Defendant JYK Investment Consulting Corporation, filed a voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding on March 15, 2019 and as such ... proceedings as to him are stayed under 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362 automatically stays proceedings against a Chapter 7 debtor, including entry of default judgment on counterclaims against him.

Tratt Industries, LLC v. Patterson · filed 2020-03-27

Under 11 U.S.C. §362, this filing constitutes an automatic stay of all proceedings against Shepard under 11 U.S.C. §362.

Section 362(a) does not stay a debtor’s own suit against others when they assert no counterclaim against the debtor.

Eagle Bear Inc. v. The Blackfeet Indian Nation · filed 2022-09-26(a)

The bankruptcy stay provision applies only to claims against the debtor. Eagle Bear’s claim rests against the Blackfeet Nation and the Blackfeet Tribal Court. The Blackfeet Nation alleges no counterclaims against Eagle Bear.

Section 362(a) did not stay the debtor’s own suit when the bank had asserted no counterclaim against him.

Van Damme v. U.S. Bank N.A., as Trustee · filed 2024-09-19(a)

But the Ninth Circuit has made clear that the stay provided for by § 362 “does not prevent a plaintiff/debtor from continuing to prosecute its own claims nor does it prevent a defendant from protecting its interests against claims brought by the debtor.”

Section 362(a)'s automatic stay does not bar a debtor's own motion concerning a restraint on the debtor's bank account.

LR Credit 22, LLC v. Eggleston · filed 2012-08-29(a)

As a threshold matter, the court rejects LR Credit’s contention that the automatic stay provision in 11 USC § 362 (a), relating to the filing of a bankruptcy petition, bars this court’s consideration of the instant motion.

Section 362(a) does not stay an interpleader to determine title to a disputed fund claimed by competing bankruptcy estates before the fund is found to be either debtor’s property.

National Cooperative Refinery Ass'n v. Rouse · filed 1986-05-07(a)

I hold that, because the purpose of this interpleader is to determine title to the res, the res is not at this point property of any “debtor” within the meaning of the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay an interpleader action when the debtor is one claimant to disputed funds and the stakeholder seeks no recovery against the debtor.

Rett White Motor Sales Co. v. Wells Fargo Bank · filed 1989-01-24(a)(1)

Defendant’s interpleader action is not an action against the debtor. Wells Fargo is not suing the bankrupt plaintiff for damages or seeking a claim to the funds. Rather, the bankrupt party is one of the claimants to the res. Section 362(a)(1) clearly does not act as a bar to the continuation of defendant’s interpleader claim.

Section 362(a) stays action against property whose ownership by the bankruptcy estate is in bona fide dispute while that dispute is resolved.

In re Grooms · filed 2019-02-28(a)

There has developed a doctrine that the stay should continue to apply when the ownership of the estate property is in bona fide dispute. ... There is no doubt in the opinion of the Court that there is a bona fide dispute about whether or not the property is property of the estate to which the stay applies, although it appears, without deciding, that the Bank and Hilliary have perhaps the stronger argument that it is not.

Section 362(a)(3) does not stay an interpleader action to determine which claimant owns disputed funds because that action does not seek possession of estate property.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Mesh Suture Inc. · filed 2020-01-29(a)(3)

The Court is not persuaded that the automatic stay applies to this interpleader action. ... Similarly, here the purpose of the automatic stay is to determine which claimant has the right to the funds contained in the Mesh Suture account. It does not “have the object of ‘obtaining possession of property of the estate.’” Holland America Ins. Co. v. Succession of Roy, 777 F.2d 992, 996 (5th Cir. 1985) (quoting 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3)).

Section 362(a)(1) stays service of process against a debtor in bankruptcy, so the debtor cannot be joined in a pending action while the stay applies.

SEASHORE ASPHALT CORPORATION v. PIGLIACELLI · filed 2022-01-27(a)(1)

Per the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Act, a party who has filed for bankruptcy is insulated from service of process.

Section 362’s automatic stay insulates a Chapter 11 debtor from service of process.

Munoz v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America · filed 1986-05-30

The automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. § 362, insulates STC from service of process.

Section 362(a)(1) prohibits filing a complaint or issuing process against a debtor covered by the automatic stay.

Kiehn v. Nelsen's Tire Company · filed 1986-09-05(a)(1)

Filing a complaint, as well as the issuance of process, against a bankrupt covered by 11 U.S.C. § 362 is a violation of the automatic stay.

Section 362(a) stays a counterclaim against a debtor after the debtor files for bankruptcy.

Action Drug Co., Inc. v. Overnite Transp. Co. · filed 1989-10-23(a)

Action filed for bankruptcy on August 1, 1989. ( See D.I. 18 at ¶ 1.) Accordingly, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), the automatic stay provision of the federal bankruptcy code, Overnite's counterclaim against Action must be stayed.

Section 362’s automatic stay bars a bankruptcy debtor from being joined as a party in a separate action while the stay is in effect.

Orix Credit Alliance, Inc. v. First Florida Bank, N.A. · filed 1992-10-27

Marco is not subject to service of process because the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362 currently bars Marco from being joined as a party.

Section 362(a)(1) renders service of a summons and complaint against a debtor invalid when made while the automatic stay is in effect.

Citibank, N.A. v. Peters · filed 2008-12-09(a)(1)

A copy of the complaint and a summons were delivered to Peters only while the bankruptcy stay was in place. That attempt at service was invalid.

Section 362(a)(1) bars issuance and service of process against a debtor after the automatic stay takes effect when the action could have been brought before the bankruptcy petition.

Swarey v. Stephenson · filed 2015-04-01(a)(1)

Accordingly, the issuance and service of process on Desert Capital after the effective date of the automatic stay was barred by 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1).

Section 362(a)(1) bars commencing an action against a debtor on a claim that arose before bankruptcy and issuing process against the debtor while the automatic stay is in effect.

Robert L. McCullough, Jr. v. Vaughn · filed 2017-04-27(a)(1)

This state court action could have been commenced before the commencement of the bankruptcy case; therefore, the commencement of this action, as well as the issuance of process on Defendant, was in violation of the automatic stay.

Section 362(a)(1) bars service of a dispossessory complaint on a debtor while the automatic stay is in effect, and a creditor with notice is responsible when its hired process server serves the complaint.

Kennedy, Jr. v. Najarian Capital, LLC · filed 2023-04-19(a)(1)

Najarian was responsible for the conduct of its agent, who served the dispossessory complaint on the Debtor in violation of the automatic stay. Accordingly, the Court finds Najarian willfully violated the automatic stay when it caused the process server to serve Debtor with the dispossessory proceeding papers on January 2, 2020.

Section 362(a)(1) stays service of process against a protected debtor until the automatic stay is lifted.

Marana Aerospace Solutions Incorporated v. STLC Europe Twenty Five Leasing Limited · filed 2025-05-13(a)(1)

Plaintiff’s deadline to serve STLC 25 will be extended until the automatic bankruptcy stay is lifted as to STLC 25.

Section 362(a)’s automatic stay does not affect a seller’s right to stop goods in transit.

Pester Refining Co. v. MAPCO Gas Products, Inc. (In Re Pester Refining Co.) · filed 1986-07-09(a)

The automatic stay does not affect a seller’s right to stop goods in transit.

Section 362(a) does not stay a dischargeability action against the debtor filed in the bankruptcy court where the debtor’s case is pending, even if a caption error places it in another case before that court.

Pergament v. Diamond · filed 2021-02-09(a)(1), (a)(6)

This Court agrees with the general proposition that actions commenced against a debtor in the bankruptcy court where the debtor’s bankruptcy case is pending do not violate the automatic stay. The Court rejects the Debtor’s argument that the action must not only be filed with the same court, but also must be filed within the same case, in order to escape a stay violation.

The automatic stay does not bar an action against the debtor filed in the bankruptcy court where the debtor’s case is pending, even if the action is mistakenly filed within a different bankruptcy case.

Robert Diamond · filed 2021-02-09(a)

This Court agrees with the general proposition that actions commenced against a debtor in the bankruptcy court where the debtor’s bankruptcy case is pending do not violate the automatic stay. The Court rejects the Debtor’s argument that the action must not only be filed with the same court, but also must be filed within the same case, in order to escape a stay violation.

Section 362(a) does not bar a creditor from filing a notice of appearance and request for notice in the bankruptcy case because that filing is not an act against the debtor, the debtor’s property, or the estate.

Lopez v. Doral Bank (In re Lopez) · filed 2013-10-22(a)

The court holds that Doral did not incur in a willful violation of the automatic stay by the mere filing of an appearance and requesting to be notified of the bankruptcy proceedings. Although the automatic stay was in effect, and Doral knew of this fact because it made an appearance in the bankruptcy case, such conduct is not proscribed by the Bankruptcy Code to constitute a violation of the stay.

The automatic stay does not prohibit the IRS from filing a proof of claim for taxes.

In Re Jackson · filed 1994-10-07

Debtors contend that the Internal Revenue Service’s action of filing a claim for 1987 and 1988 taxes is, in itself, a violation of the automatic stay. This argument is wholly without merit.

Section 362(a) does not stay proceedings brought in the bankruptcy court.

Seiler v. Hadley (In Re GIC Government Securities) · filed 1986-07-17(a)

Inasmuch as the automatic stay does not apply to proceedings brought in this Court, the Trustee’s request for sanctions is plainly without merit and should be denied.

Section 362(a) does not stay an adversary proceeding against the debtor seeking an injunction when it is brought in the court where the bankruptcy case is pending.

Vylene Enterprises, Inc. v. Naugles, Inc. (In Re Vylene Enterprises, Inc.) · filed 1986-08-13(a)

In consequence, the Court holds that an adversary proceeding against a debtor seeking an injunction, brought in the court where the bankruptcy case is pending, is not subject to the automatic stay, and that it may be heard by the bankruptcy court without obtaining relief from the automatic stay.

Section 362(a) does not stay an adversary proceeding brought in the bankruptcy court that issued the stay.

Williams v. Heller Financial, Inc. · filed 1988-01-26(a)

As noted, Southdowns has been allowed to intervene in CLIC-LP; further, as for CLIC-LP, the automatic stay provisions do not apply to the bankruptcy adversary proceedings brought in the very - bankruptcy court that issues the automatic stay, for otherwise bankruptcy would run most strangely indeed.

Section 362(a)(1) stays a postpetition state-court motion to reconsider a prepetition judgment, and a short filing deadline does not create an exception to the stay.

In Re McDonald · filed 1989-03-10(a)(1)

The respondent attorney offered no acceptable explanation or excuse for a clear violation of the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). ... That circumstance affords no exception to the automatic stay. He could have applied to this court under § 362(d) for stay relief.

Section 362(a) does not stay an action against the debtor commenced in the bankruptcy court administering the debtor’s case.

Lighthouse Bluffs, Corp. v. Atreus Enterprises, Ltd. (In Re Atreus Enterprises, Ltd.) · filed 1990-10-24(a)

Any action to recover property, to collect money, to enforce a lien, or to assert a prepetition claim against the debtor which would otherwise be enjoined by 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) if initiated in any other context, is not subject to the automatic stay if commenced in the bankruptcy court where the debtor’s bankruptcy case is pending.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay an action against the debtor brought in the bankruptcy court where the debtor’s case is pending.

Shane v. Marceca (In Re Marceca) · filed 1991-05-28(a)(1)

However, as this court recently observed, 11 U.S.C. § 362 does not operate to stay actions against the debtor brought in the bankruptcy court where the debtor’s case is pending.

Section 362(a) does not bar a party from seeking declaratory relief against the debtor in the bankruptcy court, so stay relief is unnecessary for that purpose.

In Re Toyota of Yonkers, Inc. · filed 1992-01-15(a)

Toyota is not hampered by the automatic stay imposed under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) and is free to commence an action against the debtor in this court seeking declaratory relief with respect to the alleged termination of the Toyota franchise. Therefore, relief from the automatic stay is unnecessary for this purpose.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay proceedings against a debtor commenced in the bankruptcy court where the debtor’s bankruptcy case is pending.

Prewitt v. North Coast Village, Ltd. (In Re North Coast Village, Ltd.) · filed 1992-01-22(a)(1)

We agree that the stay does not apply to proceedings commenced against the debtor in the bankruptcy court where the debtor’s bankruptcy is pending.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay a core dischargeability proceeding filed against the debtor in the court where the bankruptcy is pending, even when the count also alleges a RICO violation.

Barber v. Martin (In Re Martin) · filed 1993-11-30(a)(1)

What OMI’s trustee is attempting to do is to obtain a determination of nondischargeability, which is a core proceeding under § 157(b), and a cumulative remedy of treble damages and attorney fees. ... Therefore, even though the filing of Count 5 does not violate the automatic stay, it should be dismissed.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not bar a suit against the debtor commenced in the same bankruptcy court where the bankruptcy is pending.

Civic Center Square, Inc. v. Ford (In re Roxford Foods · filed 1993-12-20

Our decision on this issue is controlled by our decision in Teerlink Ranch, where this court found the automatic stay inapplicable to a suit commenced in the same court where the bankruptcy was pending. Therefore, the district court was correct in finding that the declaratory judgment is not void on this ground, as it was not commenced in violation of the automatic stay.

Section 362(a) does not prevent a bankruptcy court from adjudicating a nondischargeability adversary proceeding in the debtor’s Chapter 7 case during a separate Chapter 13 case, even without relief from the Chapter 13 stay.

Lucero v. Montes (In Re Montes) · filed 1994-07-07(a)

This court is not persuaded by Debtors’ argument and determines that the automatic stay arising in Debtor’s Chapter 13 proceeding does not preclude this court from adjudicating the instant Chapter 7 adversary proceeding, though Mrs. Lucero has not requested, nor been granted, relief from stay in the Chapter 13 proceeding.

Section 362(a) does not bar proceedings in the bankruptcy court with jurisdiction over the debtor.

In Re Briarwood Hills Associates, L.P. · filed 1999-08-20(a)

First, the automatic stay does not apply to proceedings in the bankruptcy court having jurisdiction over the debtor.

Section 362(a) does not automatically stay proceedings when the debtor is in a foreign bankruptcy; the debtor must seek injunctive relief under section 304.

Schimmelpenninck v. Byrne · filed 1999-08-25(a)

The section 362 automatic stay does not apply in this case, however, because HACBV is in bankruptcy in the Netherlands and must affirmatively seek injunctive relief under section 304 of the Code.

The automatic stay does not bar a creditor from filing a nondischargeability action in the bankruptcy court where the debtor’s bankruptcy case is pending.

Carole M. Rein Paul M. Driscoll William F. Croce Tina W. Croce and Paul Frenette v. Providian Financial Corporation · filed 2001-06-11

This Circuit repeatedly has held that fifing a nondischargeabifity action in the bankruptcy court where the bankruptcy case is pending does not violate the automatic stay.

The automatic stay does not bar a creditor from filing a nondischargeability action in the bankruptcy court handling the debtor’s case.

Carole M. Rein Paul M. Driscoll William F. Croce Tina W. Croce and Paul Frenette v. Providian Financial Corporation · filed 2001-11-05

We have repeatedly held that filing a nondischargeability action in the bankruptcy court where the bankruptcy case is pending does not violate the automatic stay.

Section 362(a)(1) stays an attorney’s-fee proceeding in another bankruptcy court that continues a counterclaim against the debtor, and an award entered in violation of the stay is void.

Miller v. Snavely · filed 2005-02-01(a)(1)

Because the proceeding relating to Mr. Miller’s motion for attorney’s fees was a continuation of Mr. Miller’s counter- claim against Ms. Snavely, it was subject to the automatic stay under § 362(a)(1). Accordingly, the Montana bankruptcy court erred in concluding that the automatic stay did not apply and its order granting Mr. Miller’s request for attorney’s fees violated the stay and is void.

Section 362(a)(1) stays proceedings on counterclaims against a debtor, including related requests for attorney’s fees, in bankruptcy courts other than the court where the debtor’s bankruptcy is pending.

In Re Douglas E. Miller, Debtor. Bonnie G. Snavely v. Douglas E. Miller, Debtor-Appellee · filed 2005-02-02(a)(1)

Accordingly, we hold that an automatic stay issued by a home bankruptcy court applies to all other bankruptcy courts. ... Because the proceeding relating to Mr. Miller’s motion for attorney’s fees was a continuation of Mr. Miller’s counterclaim against Ms. Snavely, it was subject to the automatic stay under § 362(a)(1).

Filing a proof of claim or seeking relief from the automatic stay in the bankruptcy court does not violate the stay or support an award of damages under Section 362(h).

In Re Surprise · filed 2006-05-04(a), (h)

Nothing that HSBC did, whether it be in filing its proof of claim or in seeking relief from the automatic stay, were actions taken outside the jurisdiction of this Court which violated either the injunction of Code § 524(a) or the automatic stay of Code § 362(a).

Section 362's automatic stay does not prohibit actions within the bankruptcy proceeding, including complaints to determine dischargeability.

KC Coring & Cutting Construction, Inc. v. McArthur (In Re McArthur) · filed 2008-07-02

Actions taken within the bankruptcy proceeding, while perhaps sanctionable under another statute or court rule, do not violate the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362(a) does not bar an adversary proceeding against a debtor in its own bankruptcy case when the proceeding is equivalent to filing a proof of claim.

Charan Trading Corp. v. Uni-Marts, LLC (In Re Uni-Marts, LLC) · filed 2009-01-12(a)

The Court agrees with the reasoning of the majority of courts to address the issue that the filing of an adversary proceeding against a debtor in its bankruptcy case can be equivalent to the filing of a proof of claim and, therefore, does not violate the automatic stay.

Section 362(a) does not bar an adversary proceeding against a debtor in the bankruptcy court administering its case because filing that proceeding is equivalent to filing a proof of claim.

Kesar, Inc. v. Uni-Marts, LLC (In Re Uni-Marts, LLC) · filed 2009-04-28(a)

The Court agrees with the reasoning of the majority of courts addressing the issue that the filing of an adversary proceeding against a debtor in the home bankruptcy court is equivalent to the filing of a proof of claim in the Debtor’s bankruptcy case and, therefore, does not violate the automatic stay.

Section 362(a) does not bar filing an adversary proceeding against a debtor in the bankruptcy court where its bankruptcy case is pending, because that filing is equivalent to filing a proof of claim.

JNA-1 Corp. v. Uni-Marts, LLC (In Re Uni-Marts, LLC) · filed 2009-04-29(a)

The Court agrees with the reasoning of the majority of courts addressing the issue that the filing of an adversary proceeding against a debtor in the home bankruptcy court is equivalent to the filing of a proof of claim in the Debtor’s bankruptcy case and, therefore, does not violate the automatic stay.

Section 362(a) does not prevent a creditor from pursuing a nondischargeability action in the debtor’s bankruptcy case.

Knowles v. McGuckin (In Re McGuckin) · filed 2009-06-05(a)

It is well-settled, however, that the automatic stay of § 362(a), while protecting a debtor from a creditor’s collection efforts, does not prevent a creditor from exercising their legal rights within the confines of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 362(a)(8) does not invalidate a Tax Court deficiency proceeding when the court takes no action in the case during the bankruptcy proceeding, even if it was not notified of the bankruptcy.

Colvin v. Comm'r · filed 2010-10-26(a)(8)

Petitioner also contends that (1) respondent violated the automatic stay provision of 11 U.S.C. sec. 362(a)(8) (2006) as a consequence of not notifying the Court of petitioner’s bankruptcy proceeding, and (2) that failure invalidated the deficiency proceeding. We do not agree with petitioner’s contention. Regardless of whether notification was provided to the Court, we took no action in petitioner’s case while petitioner’s bankruptcy proceeding was in progress. Thus, petitioner was not harmed.