11 U.S.C. § 362

Section 362(a) takes effect when the bankruptcy petition is filed, so conduct before filing does not violate the automatic stay.

Gilliam · filed 2026-01-20(a)

Because the automatic stay was not yet in effect on November 4, this act could not have violated the stay.

The automatic stay ends when confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan discharges the debtor.

Reed · filed 2026-02-11

Thus, because the parties are subject to the Confirmed Plan, the automatic stay of this case is due to be LIFTED.

Section 362(c)(2) ends the automatic stay when a bankruptcy petition is dismissed, allowing the stayed proceedings to continue.

Banco Popular De Puerto Rico v. Challenger Brass & Cooper Co., Abimael Padilla Negrón, Kassandra A. Pagán Medina Y Otros · filed 2026-03-09(c)(2)

Al haberse desestimado las peticiones, tampoco subsiste paralización automática alguna que impida la continuación de los procedimientos en el caso de autos contra todos los peticionarios.

Section 362(c)(2)(B) ends the automatic stay when the bankruptcy case is dismissed.

DESIR · filed 2026-03-16(c)(2)(B)

However, a valid automatic stay requires a pending bankruptcy case, see 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(B), and Desir's bankruptcy case was dismissed since she filed this appeal.

Section 362(c)(2)(A) terminates the automatic stay when a bankruptcy case closes.

Wilkes · filed 2026-04-22(c)(2)(A)

Section 362(c)’s automatic stay terminates when a case is 9 closed.

An order approving a Chapter 7 debtor’s written waiver of discharge counts as a denial of discharge and ends the automatic stay as to the debtor and the debtor’s property, but not estate property.

Kevin J Mattson · filed 2026-04-24(c)(2)(C)

Because the Court concludes that its order accepting Mr. Mattson’s voluntary written waiver of discharge was a denial of discharge for purposes of § 362(c)(2)(C), and that the automatic stay as to any act under § 362(a) other than an act against property of the estate terminated on December 17, 2025, Mr. Beliveau’s motion is granted.

Dismissal of a bankruptcy case terminates the automatic stay and permits a stayed civil action to proceed.

Choice Hotels International Inc. v. Baba Nanak Hospitality Group Corp. · filed 2026-06-02(c)(2)(B)

The Bankruptcy Court dismissed Baba Nanak’s bankruptcy case on December 18, 2025, terminating the automatic stay and allowing this case to proceed.

Section 362(c) permits creditors to pursue post-confirmation debts when the automatic stay terminates as estate property vests in the reorganized debtor.

In Re Frank Meador Buick, Inc. · filed 1986-04-14(c)

As the court noted in the Redmond Opinion, the “post-confirmation creditors of the reorganized debtor are no longer restrained by the automatic stay in Bankruptcy which terminates when the property of the estate vests in the reorganized debtor ...” 36 B.R. 934; see 11 U.S.C. § 362(c). At that time, the creditors were free to pursue available measures to collect their post-confirmation debts from the debtor or to seek. security for their claims. IRS sought to do so by filing and perfecting the tax liens.

Section 362 prevents creditors from bringing actions detrimental to the bankruptcy estate until the automatic stay ends.

Citicorp Mortgage, Inc. v. Hardy · filed 1992-06-02

However, by reason of the stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, creditors are precluded from instituting any action detrimental to the bankruptcy estate prior to termination or expiration of the stay.

The automatic stay ends when the bankruptcy case is dismissed, allowing a creditor to proceed with foreclosure.

In the Matter of Paramvir Singh Tuli, Debtor. Balbir Singh Tuli v. Charter Pacific Bank · filed 1994-01-25

Because Tuli failed to obtain a stay pending appeal, the Bank was free to complete its foreclosure proceedings on the two properties as the automatic stay was lifted. See 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(c)(1)(B); Fed.R.Bankr. 8005.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) terminates the stay of actions against a debtor when discharge is denied.

Matter of Plunkett · filed 1995-07-11(c)(2)(C)

Moreover, when the debtor’s discharge was denied in August of 1983, the stay of actions against Plunkett terminated by operation of law, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(C). At that time, Emerald and WSLA were free to pursue and obtain deficiency judgments against Plunkett. Therefore, any argument that recovery against Plunkett personally would have been precluded by the automatic stay must also fail.

Confirmation of a reorganization plan can end the automatic stay on state court proceedings.

Tope v. Christianson · filed 1998-06-05

Confirmation of a reorganization plan results in termination of the automatic stay on state court proceedings; TEC could have resumed litigation of the counterclaim in the spring of 1991.

Section 362(c)(2) ends the automatic stay upon denial of the debtor's discharge.

McGuirl v. Comm'r · filed 1999-01-29(c)(2)

On August 7, 1996, we denied petitioner's motion, as the stay imposed under 11 U.S.C. sec. 362(a) (1994) was no longer in effect due to the denial of petitioner's discharge in bankruptcy on January 25, 1994.

Section 362’s automatic stay terminates when the debtor receives a Chapter 7 discharge.

Stout v. United States Department of Education (In Re Stout) · filed 1999-03-08

And, since the student loan debt has not been found to be discharged, it would not be a violation of federal law for the State to seek to collect the balance owed, because the Stouts have received a discharge in their Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings and the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362 has terminated.

Section 362’s automatic stay prevents a garnishing creditor from acting while the stay applies.

Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance v. Daly (In re Daly) · filed 1983-05-17

Here we have a situation where the gar-nishor was stayed by the automatic stay, 11 U.S.C. § 362, and the plaintiff’s answer in garnishment was not controverted until after it had paid the beneficiary of the policy.

Conversion of a bankruptcy case to another chapter does not trigger a new automatic stay under § 362.

Ramirez v. Whelan (In Re Ramirez) · filed 1995-06-02(a)

The great weight of authority holds that the automatic stay provisions of § 362 are not triggered by conversion.

Section 362(a) bars actions outside bankruptcy to recover against a debtor after it files for bankruptcy.

Fixed Income Shares: Series M v. Citibank N.A. · filed 2018-03-22(a)

Specifically, because of the automatic bankruptcy stay, Citibank was precluded from taking any actions outside of the bankruptcy to recover against the bankrupt entities.

Section 362’s automatic stay suspends proceedings following Puerto Rico’s Title III petition until the bankruptcy proceeding ends or the stay is lifted.

Estado Libre Asociado De Puerto Rico v. El Ojo De Agua Development, Inc.; John Doe Y Richard Doe · filed 2018-02-02

Por consiguiente, y acorde con la petición presentada por el Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico bajo el Título III de PROMESA el 3 de mayo de 2017, se ordena el archivo administrativo de este recurso y la paralización de los procedimientos, hasta tanto una de las partes nos certifique que se ha levantado la paralización automática, ya sea por la conclusión del procedimiento de quiebras o mediante una solicitud a esos efectos, según permite la Sección 362(d) del Código Federal de Quiebras.

Section 362’s automatic stay terminates upon discharge, allowing a court to decide a pending motion after the stay ends.

Nationstar Mtge., LLC v. Turcotte · filed 2018-05-23(c)(2)(C)

On August 24, 2010, the defendants received a discharge in bankruptcy, which terminated the automatic stay ( see 11 USC § 362[c][2][C]). ... Although the plaintiff's submission of its summary judgment motion predated the termination of the automatic bankruptcy stay, the Supreme Court, in effect, suspended the proceedings ( see Carr v McGriff , 8 AD3d 420) until rendering its determination on the plaintiff's motion more than 2½ months after the automatic bankruptcy stay was terminated.

Section 362’s automatic stay ended upon confirmation of the Chapter 11 plan, allowing the stayed products liability suits to resume because the discharge injunction did not apply.

Citibank, N.A. v. White Motor Corp. (In Re White Motor Credit Corp.) · filed 1984-02-17(a)

(1) The automatic stay provided by 11 U.S.C. § 362 having terminated on November 18,1983, and the discharge injunction of 11 U.S.C. § 524 being inapplicable to the claims before this Court, products liability cases may be resumed or continued in the appropriate state and federal courts, subject to the following restrictions: (a) Within the limitations of the relevant state law, these actions may proceed to trial and judgments may be obtained against all appropriate parties, including White, White’s co-defendants, and, where permitted, White’s insurers.

Section 362(e) terminates the automatic stay thirty days after a section 362(d) request is filed unless, after notice and a hearing, the court orders the stay to remain in effect.

In re Seville Partners · filed 1984-09-12(e)

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. sec. 362(e), the automatic stay is terminated thirty days after a section 362(d) request is filed unless the court, after notice and a hearing, orders the stay to remain in effect.

Section 362(a) automatically stays foreclosure actions against property of the bankruptcy estate after a case is filed.

Matter of Bryant · filed 1985-07-02(a)

Therefore, the Court finds that the foreclosure sale held by FNMA on March 29, 1985, was conducted in violation of the automatic stay as provided in 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), and as such, must be voided and set aside.

Section 362 makes actions taken in violation of the automatic stay void from the outset.

B-U Acquisition Group, Inc. v. Utica Mutual Insurance (In Re Baldwin-United Corp.) · filed 1985-08-30

Since actions taken in violation of that stay are void ab initio (In re Thacker, 24 B.R. 835 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1982)), the California action must be treated as though it were never commenced.

Section 362(c)(1) ends the stay against estate property when it leaves the estate, and § 362(c)(2)(C) ends the stay against other acts when a Chapter 11 discharge is granted or denied.

In Re Balogun · filed 1985-12-20(c)(1), (c)(2)

Under § 362(c)(1) the stay against an act to recover property automatically terminates when that property is no longer property of the estate. Since § 1141(b) has already moved the Mercedes sedan out of the Chapter 11 estate, the stay is no longer in effect as to the car. ... By operation of § 362(c)(2)(C), the automatic stay is now terminated as to any act against the debtor personally.

Section 362(a)(1) stays the commencement or continuation of proceedings against the debtor or to recover a prepetition claim.

Chapliski v. Churchill Coal Corp. · filed 1985-12-27(a)(1)

The issue is whether the Automatic Stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362 barred the Court of Common Pleas from entering the retroactive order of July 7, 1981. We reluctantly find that it did.

Section 362(a) automatically stays acts to enforce a lien against or obtain possession of property of the debtor or estate when a bankruptcy petition is filed.

Boone Coal and Timber Company v. William J.M. Polan (85-5400), the Bank of New York (85-5408) · filed 1986-04-08(a)

There is no corresponding statutory prohibition barring our review of the district court’s lifting of the automatic stay. Title 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) provides for an automatic stay of acts to enforce a lien against or to obtain possession of property of the debtor or of the estate upon the filing of a petition in bankruptcy. The question before the bankruptcy court was whether the debtor retained an interest in the leased land at the time the petition in bankruptcy was filed. If the debtor retained a legal or equitable interest, it would be included in the bankrupt estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(a) and relief from the stay would not be justified. Thus, it was necessary for the bankruptcy judge to determine whether the lease had been properly terminated under Kentucky law prior to the filing of the petition in bankruptcy.

Section 362(a)(1) stays actions against a debtor that were or could have been commenced before the bankruptcy case or seek to recover a claim that arose before the case.

In Re AH Robins Co., Inc. · filed 1986-08-25(a)(1)

For the reasons stated in this memorandum, the Court concludes that Grady’s lawsuit represents a pre-petition claim and is therefore stayed pursuant to the mandates of § 362(a)(1).

Section 362(a) automatically stays the commencement or continuation of proceedings against a debtor, including proceedings to recover prepetition claims.

Kassover v. Computer Depot, Inc. · filed 1987-04-27(a)

On December 18, 1985, CDI filed its petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. On June 25, 1986, more than six months after CDI filed its bankruptcy petition, plaintiff commenced this action naming CDI and various individuals and underwriters as defendants. Thus this action was commenced against CDI in contravention of Title 11, United States Code § 362(a), which provides in part that a petition filed under § 301, 302 or 303 of this title ... operates as a stay, applicable to all entities, of (1) the commencement or continuation, including the issuance or employment of process, of a judicial, administrative, or other actual proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the case under this title, or to recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title.

Section 362(c)(2) ends the automatic stay when the bankruptcy case closes, is dismissed, or the debtor receives a discharge, whichever occurs first.

Neilson v. Commissioner · filed 1990-01-02(c)(2)

Accordingly, where a bankruptcy proceeding is closed, dismissed, or a discharge is granted, the automatic stay is "lifted" and is no longer in effect.

Section 362(c)(2) terminates the automatic stay when the debtor is discharged.

Davis v. Colorado Real Estate Commission · filed 1990-03-22(c)(2)

In addition, the automatic stay terminated when the Darrahs were discharged in March 1988.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) terminates the automatic stay when a chapter 11 plan’s confirmation grants or denies discharge.

Moody v. Commissioner · filed 1990-12-26(c)(2)(C)

Accordingly, the provision of 11 U.S.C. section 362(c)(2)(C) comes into effect because the grant or denial of discharge serves to terminate the automatic stay.

The automatic stay of a Tax Court proceeding ends after the bankruptcy court enters a discharge order.

Ginella v. Commissioner · filed 1990-12-27(a)(8)

We agree with respondent that the automatic stay provision has been terminated and this case should be restored to the general docket.

Section 362 imposes an automatic stay that terminates when the bankruptcy case is dismissed.

In Re Hahn · filed 1996-04-15

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 362 is terminated; and it is further ... ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the Debtor is prohibited irom filing any proceeding under Title 11 for 120 days from the date of this Order pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 105(a).

Section 362(c)(2)(C) ends the remaining automatic stay when an individual Chapter 7 debtor receives a discharge.

Roy v. Beilin, No. 31 50 57 (Sep. 8, 1997) · filed 1997-09-08(c)(2)(C)

In the present case, Bertha Beilin has received her discharge from bankruptcy, and relief from stay has been granted as to Joseph Beilin. Therefore, by the terms of § 362, the automatic stay has lifted as to the plaintiff's foreclosure action.

Section 362(c)(2) ends the automatic stay in an individual Chapter 7 case when the debtor’s discharge is denied.

Wessinger v. Raab (In re Greenberg) · filed 2002-11-15(c)(2)

The automatic stay in Debt- or’s Chapter 7 case thus expired on August 2, 2002, the date on which the Clerk of Court entered this Court’s Order denying a discharge to Debtor.

Section 362’s automatic stay ends when the debtor receives a discharge.

Green v. Han Mok Yang (In Re Green) · filed 1983-05-06(c)(2)(C)

The discharge of Debtor on 29 July 1982, however, effected a lifting of the stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) ends the automatic stay when confirmation of a liquidating Chapter 11 plan denies the debtor a discharge.

Teamsters Pension Trust Fund of Philadelphia & Vicinity v. Malone Realty Co. · filed 1988-01-27(c)(2)(C)

Thus, even if the automatic stay would have barred this civil action before the confirmation of debtor’s Chapter 11 plan, confirmation of the plan dissolved the automatic stay because the discharge that ordinarily accompanies confirmation did not occur. It follows that a discharge was “denied,” within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(C), no later than the moment of confirmation.

Section 362(c)(2)(B) terminates the automatic stay when a bankruptcy case is dismissed.

In re Anvil Holdings LP · filed 2019-01-24(c)(2)(B)

As a consequence of dismissal, the automatic stay is terminated by operation of law, under 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(B).

Section 362(c) ends the automatic stay when the bankruptcy case is dismissed.

Ruesch v. Household Automotive Finance Corp. (In re Ruesch) · filed 2005-12-05(c)

Dismissal of a case terminates all existing stays. 11 U.S.C. § 362(c).

Section 362(h)(1) terminates the automatic stay when a debtor fails both to file the required statement and to take the action specified in it.

In Re McMullen · filed 2010-09-03(h)(1)(A) and (B)

The statute says that the stay IS terminated IF a debtor fails to file the required statement per subsection (A), AND to take the action specified in the statement per subsection (B). ... The statute says “and” because a debtor must comply with both (A) and (B), otherwise the stay is terminated.

Section 362(c)(2)(A) ends the automatic stay for acts other than against estate property when the bankruptcy case closes.

In Re Victorio · filed 2011-07-08(c)(2)(A)

The automatic stay of an act other than against property of the estate terminates on the closing of the case under 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(A).

Section 362(c)(2) ends the stay as to a Chapter 7 debtor’s personal liability when the case closes or is dismissed, or when discharge is granted or denied, whichever occurs first.

Laz · filed 2019-05-01(c)(2)

In an individual Chapter 7 case, the stay as to personal liability otherwise ends when the bankruptcy case is closed or dismissed, or when the bankruptcy court either grants or denies a discharge of the individual debtor’s debts—whichever happens earlier. 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2). ... By operation of law, as discussed earlier, the discharge terminated the automatic stay and replaced it with a permanent injunction.

An automatic stay under Section 362(a)(1) can cease to apply after approval of a defendant’s Chapter 11 plan, allowing a stayed civil action to proceed.

Williamson · filed 2025-10-21(a)(1)

On May 1, 2025, the bankruptcy court issued an order approving Wellpath’s Chapter 11 plan of reorganization. See /n re Wellpath Holdings, Inc., No. 24-90533, Doc. 2596 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. May 1, 2025). Accordingly, because the case is no longer subject to an automatic bankruptcy stay, the court will lift the stay and proceed to a screening review of Williamson's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a) and 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Under § 362(d)(2), a ratified foreclosure sale can leave the debtor with no equity in the property and no prospect that it is necessary to an effective reorganization, supporting relief from the automatic stay.

Singh v. Lai · filed 2019-09-30(d)(2)

The Bankruptcy Court was therefore correct to find that Appellant “does not have an equity” in the Property under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2)(A). ... His right of redemption was extinguished by the ratification of the foreclosure sale. ... There is therefore no possibility that the Property could be necessary to an effective reorganization, and the Bankruptcy Court was thus correct to find that this requirement for lifting the stay was met as well.

Section 362(d)(1) allows relief from the automatic stay when a thin equity cushion will be quickly eroded by accruing payments and interest and the debtor offers no other adequate protection.

HSBC Bank USA, National Associ v. United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado · filed 2019-10-16(d)(1)

HSBC’s accruing monthly payments and interest would quickly erode any equity in the Property and leave HSBC undersecured and ETrade completely unsecured. Furthermore, the Debtor did not propose any additional means of adequate protection, such as periodic payments. Accordingly, the Bankruptcy Court did not err in finding HSBC and ETrade were not adequately protected and did not abuse its discretion in granting relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) requires relief from the automatic stay when a creditor lacks adequate protection, even if the creditor’s failure to file a timely proof of claim contributed to that lack of protection.

Dana J. Weyer and Lori A. Weyer · filed 2020-01-03(d)(1)

In essence, the Weyers ask the court to create an implied exception to section 362(d), precluding a creditor from securing relief from the automatic stay when the creditor’s failure to file a timely proof of claim is a cause of the lack of adequate protection. ... Because Congress has not included such an exception, this court may not add or imply one.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay when missed postpetition payments on secured debt leave the creditor without adequate protection.

St. Maarten v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company · filed 2020-03-05(d)(1)

The Bankruptcy Court also correctly found that Appellees had made a sufficient showing that they were entitled to the relief granted in the amended order. (Id. at 307–11.) At the time the order was issued, Appellant’s loan was due and she owed 144 payments. The Bankruptcy Court found that such “failure to make post-petition payments on a secured debt constitute[d] a lack of adequate protection” and entitled Appellees to stay relief under § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) allows relief from the stay when a foreclosure purchaser’s interest under a delivered but unrecorded deed is not adequately protected, despite the debtor’s continuing right to cure.

Marie King · filed 2020-04-30(d)(1)

REI’s interest, however, in the property by virtue of its delivered but unrecorded Mortgagee’s Deed is not adequately protected. Accordingly, pursuant to section 362(d), the automatic stay is terminated, and REI may proceed with recording the Mortgagee’s Deed and take such further steps as are necessary to complete the foreclosure process and take possession of the property.

In a Chapter 7 case, relief from the stay under § 362(d)(2) turns on whether the debtor has equity in the property, since no reorganization is possible.

D/C Distribution, LLC · filed 2020-07-21(d)(2)

Thus, in this chapter 7 case, equity is the sole matter for the court’s determination under section 362(d)(2). ... As a result, the court must conclude that for the purpose of determining this Motion, the Debtor lacks equity in the payouts under the Policies. The Claimants have established grounds for relief from stay under section 362(d)(2).

Section 362(d)(1) permits denial of stay relief when a substantial equity cushion adequately protects a secured creditor despite the debtor’s missed postpetition payments.

Ellen Woodward · filed 2020-07-21(d)(1)

However, the Court concludes that there is sufficient equity cushion, even with the Debtor’s post-petition payment failures, to give U.S. Bank adequate protection at this time.

Section 362(d)(1) allows stay relief for lack of adequate protection, but a substantial equity cushion can adequately protect a secured creditor despite missed mortgage payments.

Woodward v. U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee for RMAC · filed 2020-07-21(d)(1)

However, the Court concludes that there is sufficient equity cushion, even with the Debtor’s post-petition payment failures, to give U.S. Bank adequate protection at this time.

Section 362(d)(1) does not require relief from the automatic stay for a contractual default when the debtor is paying the secured debt through a Chapter 13 plan and adequately protecting the creditor’s interest.

Gina Marie Byers and Jeremy Michael Byers · filed 2020-08-03(d)(1)

Since the Byers are paying the debt through the plan, the Court does not deem contractual default alleged by Creditor relevant to the present analysis. ... Moreover, the payment of the principal amount of the Creditor’ □ claim at an interest rate allowed by applicable bankruptcy law together with adequate protection payments and specified monthly payments, in the view of the Court, constitutes adequate protection of the Creditor’s interest. Therefore, the Court does not find evidence of sufficient weight to constitute cause or otherwise warrant lifting, modifying or annulling the automatic stay at this time.

Section 362(d)(1) requires a creditor seeking stay relief for lack of adequate protection to make an initial showing that its collateral is declining or threatened to decline in value as a result of the stay.

Moore & Moore Trucking, LLC · filed 2020-10-14(d)(1)

The fact that the Debtor may mow the lot irregularly is not enough to establish that the value of the Violet Lot is declining or is threatened to decline in value as a result of the automatic stay. The Court finds that Traylor Properties has failed to establish a prima facie case for cause due to lack of adequate protection.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for lack of adequate protection, but subsequent adequate protection can resolve that ground for relief.

Robert Charles Dunkes, Sr. · filed 2020-11-16(d)(1)

A creditor’s request for relief from stay for lack of adequate protection can, however, be resolved through the subsequent provision of adequate protection.

Section 362(d)(2) requires the movant to show that the debtor has no equity in the property, after which the debtor must show that the property is necessary to an effective reorganization.

Paul Charles Bird, Sr. · filed 2022-02-18(d)(2)

Section 362(d)(2) initially requires a moving party to establish there is no equity in the property that is secured by the loan. Once the movant makes that showing, the burden is on the debtor to establish that the collateral at issue is “necessary to an effective reorganization.”

Section 362(d)(1) allows relief from the automatic stay when a secured creditor lacks adequate protection, even if that creditor failed to file a timely proof of claim.

Weyer, Dana v. Valley Communities Credit Union · filed 2022-05-19(d)(1)

In combination with the plain language of § 362(d), permitting relief from the automatic stay for a secured creditor whose interest the debtor failed to adequately protect, VCCU has met its burden of demonstrating entitlement to relief under that provision.

Section 362(d)(1) permits the stay to be lifted for cause when a debtor fails to provide adequate protection to a landlord.

Payam Inc · filed 2022-08-10(d)(1)

Additionally, to avoid having the automatic stay lifted, the Debtor was required to provide the Landlord with “adequate protection.” It did not do so here.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay for an act against property when the debtor lacks equity in the property and the property is unnecessary for reorganization.

Roberto Robles, Jr. · filed 2022-08-16(d)(2)

Here, there is sufficient cause to lift the automatic stay because the Debtor does not have equity in the Apartment, and the Apartment is unnecessary for a successful reorganization.

Section 362(d)(1) allows relief from the automatic stay when a creditor cannot adequately protect its interest in property.

HOLMES · filed 2022-12-16(d)(1)

In this case, Judge Chan reasonably found that Ly’s inability to protect his interest in the 1031 Christian property warranted relief from stay.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay when a party in interest lacks adequate protection of an interest in property, even if that party does not hold a secured claim under § 506(a).

Michael A. Rios and Janelle R. Rios · filed 2023-03-03(d)(1)

Section 362(d)(1)’s requirement to provide adequate protection is not limited to creditors holding secured claims as determined by § 506(a). Instead, it applies more broadly to parties in interest having “an interest in property.”

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for lack of adequate protection of a creditor’s interest in property, even if the creditor does not hold a secured claim under § 506(a).

Michael A. Rios and Janelle R. Rios · filed 2023-06-16(d)(1)

Section 362(d)(1) merely requires the IRS to have “an interest in property.”

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and fails to show a reasonable possibility of confirming a plan within a reasonable time.

Rosa Linda Guzman Ghaffari · filed 2025-01-31(d)(2)

U.S. Bank did not meet its initial burden to show there are sufficient grounds for modification of the stay for cause under § 362(d)(1). However, because U.S. Bank established that Debtor has no equity in the Via Salerno Property, it was Debtor’s burden to show that the Via Salerno Property is necessary to an effective reorganization. To meet this burden, Debtor was required to show that there is a reasonable possibility in this case of confirmation of a plan within a reasonable time. Debtor did not meet this burden. U.S. Bank is therefore entitled to modification of the automatic stay regarding the Via Salerno Property under § 362(d)(2).

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for lack of adequate protection when interest and charges accruing on a senior lien erode a junior lienholder’s interest in the property, even if the debtor might later confirm a plan modifying the junior lien.

Renzo Enrrico Campanella and Susana Campanella · filed 2025-02-28(d)(1)

First and foremost, the possibility that the Campanellas might be able to confirm a chapter 11 plan that values BayFirst’s lien at $632,084.96 has no direct correlation to whether BayFirst’s interest in the property is being adequately protected. The record is clear that it is not. As each day passes, interest, fees, and other costs due to U.S. Bank continue to accrue, steadily eroding BayFirst’s interest in the property. This is, by definition, lack of adequate protection.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for lack of adequate protection when payments on secured debt have stopped and the debt exceeds the collateral’s value.

Marilyn May Sloniker and Pedro Balderramo Justo · filed 2025-05-21(d)(1)

Since no payments have been made on these secured debts since the petition was filed and the balances are greater than the value, relief from stay under section 362(d)(1) is appropriate because Deere lacks adequate protection.

A secured creditor can establish cause for stay relief under § 362(d)(1) by showing that missed postpetition payments have caused its collateral to decline in value, unless the debtor shows adequate protection.

Marita Padiernos Rosado · filed 2025-05-28(d)(1)

JP Morgan has shown that Debtor has failed to make payments under the Agreement, and therefore, has satisfied its burden of demonstrating that the collateral is declining in value as a result of the stay.

Section 362(d)(2) requires relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and the property is unnecessary to an effective reorganization.

Downey v. Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois University · filed 2025-06-05(d)(2)

Having established that Downey owned no equity in the apartment and that it was not necessary to her bankruptcy petition, relief from the stay was mandatory under section 362(d)(2).

Section 362(d)(2) requires relief from the stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and cannot show that the property is necessary to a successful reorganization within a reasonable time.

Hillcrest Ventures, LLC · filed 2026-03-19(d)(2)

Further, the Court will grant relief under section 362(d)(2), finding that the debtor has no equity in the property and that the debtor has failed to meet its burden to show the prospect of a successful reorganization within a reasonable amount of time.

Section 362(d) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause, including lack of adequate protection; adequate protection supports denying that relief.

General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Gardner (In Re Gardner) · filed 1982-09-28(d)

At the hearing in the Bankruptcy Court, GMAC invoked 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides that an automatic stay can be revoked for cause, including lack of adequate protection on the part of the creditor seeking relief. ... Therefore, it was not clearly erroneous to find that the plan was feasible, that GMAC was adequately protected, and to allow the turn over of the automobile.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and the property is not necessary for an effective reorganization.

General Motor Inns, Inc. v. L & M Properties, Inc. (In Re L & M Properties, Inc.) · filed 1989-06-15(d)(2)

Finding that L & M has no equity in the Property, and that the Property is not necessary for an effective reorganization, the Court will order the automatic stay lifted pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2).

Section 362(d)(2) requires a creditor seeking relief from the stay to prove that the debtor lacks equity in the property; without evidence of its current value, the creditor cannot establish that requirement.

In Re Cabrillo · filed 1989-06-23(d)(2), (g)(1)

It is clearly Meridian’s burden to establish the Debtors’ lack of equity in the secured property by the terms of 11 U.S.C. § 362(g)(1). The present record does not reveal the present value of the Debtors’ CD.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor fails to prove adequate protection of a franchisor’s interest during continued use of its license.

In Re Tudor Motor Lodge Associates, Ltd. Partnership · filed 1989-06-26(d)(1)

Based upon the record before this court, the court grants DIAF’s motion for relief from the automatic stay on the grounds that the debtor has failed to meet its burden of proving adequate protection.

Section 362(d)(1) allows relief from the automatic stay when a creditor lacks adequate protection; whether an equity cushion provides that protection depends on the circumstances.

Kost v. First Interstate Bank of Greybull (In Re Kost) · filed 1989-07-07(d)(1)

Applying the bankruptcy court’s value and debt calculations, this court also finds an equity cushion of approximately 11.5%. This court agrees that this equity cushion does not provide adequate protection to the bank in the circumstances of this case.

In a Chapter 7 case, § 362(d) permits relief from the automatic stay for a secured creditor when the debtor has no equity in the collateral.

In Re Campbell · filed 1991-04-19(d)

Consequently, the Debtor has no equity in the property. This Court finds the Movant to be entitled to relief from the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) (1988).

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay when a creditor’s interest is not adequately protected.

In Re Grant Broadcasting of Philadelphia, Inc. · filed 1987-06-24(d)(1)

Additionally, if the Noteholders’ interests were not adequately protected, they would have been able to obtain relief from the automatic stay to pursue whatever contractual state law remedies exist, including recovery of their collateral, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) requires relief from the automatic stay when a creditor’s setoff interest is not adequately protected.

Big Bear Super Market No. 3 v. Princess Baking Corp. (In Re Princess Baking Corp.) · filed 1980-08-08(d)(1)

But Princess offers no alternative method to be used to adequately protect Big Bear, so the Court must conclude that relief must be granted given the lack of adequate protection.

Section 362 permits modification of the automatic stay to allow foreclosure when the creditor lacks adequate protection.

Sirgany v. P. K. Fox Corp. (In Re P. K. Fox Corp.) · filed 1981-07-01(d)(1)

The Court finds that the Plaintiff, Benita Sirgany, is not adequately protected as contemplated by Title 11, United States Code, nor has the Defendant offered adequate protection to the Plaintiff. ... Accordingly, the automatic stay imposed by Title 11, United States Code, Section 362 shall be by separate judgment entered herewith modified to allow the Plaintiff to complete its foreclosure sale in the Circuit Court.

Section 362 permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor cannot adequately protect a secured creditor, even if the property is necessary for reorganization.

United Kentucky Bank v. Milo Ridge Resort & Executive Conference Center (In re Milo Ridge Resort & Executive Conference · filed 1983-03-22(d)(1)

The Court further finds that while the debtor has established that the realty in issue is necessary for its rehabilitation, it has been unable to meet its responsibility of providing adequate protection to this creditor under 11 U.S.C. § 361. ... Where adequate protection does not exist, this Court has no alternative but to grant the relief sought.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay when a party lacks adequate protection.

In Re DeSantis · filed 1986-11-14(d)(1)

I must therefore decline to follow Sweetwater and I will apply the provisions of sections 361, 362(d)(1) and 363(e) to a leasehold interest in a chapter 7 proceeding involving a nonresidential lease.

Relief from the automatic stay does not retroactively extinguish a creditor’s right to adequate protection for the period when the stay was in effect; the court may approve payment afterward.

In Re Engle · filed 1987-12-30(d)

So long as the adequate protection payments sought arise from an agreement entered during the period that the. stay was in effect, and so long as the fund represents compensation for a period when the creditor actually refrained from seeking relief from the stay, I hold that court approval of the transfer of funds may be entered in response to a motion made after the stay has been lifted.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when liens exceed the property's value and the debtor has no equity in it.

Federal Deposit Insurance v. Debtor & Trustee (In Re Moscoso Villaronga) · filed 1989-10-18(d)(2)

The stay is lifted because the liens encumbering the realty exceed its value.

Section 362(d) permits relief from the automatic stay when depreciation of collateral jeopardizes a secured creditor’s ability to recover its secured claim and the creditor lacks adequate protection.

In Re Lee · filed 1995-05-23(d)

Where a secured creditor looks to the hen for satisfaction of a claim, the adequate protection such creditor is entitled to under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) amounts to any depreciation of the property between the date of filing and the anticipated date of discharge which jeopardizes a secured party’s ability to realize the amount of its secured claim as determined at the time of the filing.

Section 362(d)(1) permits a court to lift the automatic stay for cause, including inadequate protection of a creditor’s interest in property.

Green Point Bank v. Treston · filed 1995-10-20(d)(1)

As the bankruptcy court explains, Green Point’s motion was based on 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1), which permits the court to lift the automatic stay “for cause, including the lack of adequate protection of an interest in property....” ... Under these circumstances, the bankruptcy court’s finding of lack of adequate protection is not clearly erroneous.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay when a secured creditor's interest is not adequately protected.

United McGill Corp. v. Milo Ridge Resort & Executive Conference Center (In re Milo Ridge Resort & Executive Conference C · filed 1982-11-12(d)(1)

In view of the modest abilities of the debtor, not only currently but through the period to June, 1983, to meet its commitment to the plaintiff, it is the opinion of the Court that defendant has failed to sustain its requisite burden of proof to assure that plaintiff is adequately protected and will not suffer irreparable harm, injury or damage by the retention of the stay provisions.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and cannot show that it is necessary to an effective reorganization within a reasonable time.

In re Sutton · filed 1990-07-31(d)(2)

In order to lift a stay under section 362(d)(2) the bankruptcy court must find that the debtor has no equity in the property and that the property in question is "not necessary to an effective reorganization." ... Once Bank One established that Sutton retained no equity in his properties it became incumbent upon Sutton to demonstrate that the properties were necessary to an effective reorganization. ... We cannot but admire Sutton's optimism, but we cannot conclude that the bankruptcy court was clearly erroneous in finding that an effective reorganization was not feasible within a reasonable amount of time.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause, including inadequate protection of a creditor's interest.

Jenkins v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc as agent for U.S. Bank, N.A. · filed 2018-01-09(d)(1)

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by modifying the automatic stay for SPS after finding that Jenkins lacked adequate protection.

Section 362(a) does not stay the purchase of equity in a debtor corporation when the purchase is not an act against the debtor or its property.

In Re: 31 Tozer Road, LLC · filed 2018-01-09(a)

A debtor corporation does not have a property interest in its own equity, and the purchase of equity is not an act against the debtor or the debtor’s property.

Section 362(a)(3)-(6) bars postpetition acts that would create liens on a debtor’s production and intercept its receivables when the liens do not relate back to a prepetition date.

Southland Royalty Company LLC v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. · filed 2021-01-22(a)(3)-(6)

Rather, these actions violate the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3)-(6) because they would give rise to postpetition liens and cause the interception of debtor receivables from Wamsutter.

Section 362(a)(4) prohibits acts to create, perfect, or enforce liens against estate property, but a factfinding inquiry that only coincidentally sets lien perfection in motion does not violate the stay.

Pereira v. 397 Realty LLC · filed 2018-01-25(a)(4)

Section 362(a)(4) does not prohibit all acts which coincidentally set in motion the creation, perfection, or enforcement of a lien. Rather, the prohibited, and thus compensable, act must be an act to create, to perfect, or to enforce a lien.

Section 362(a)(4) bars a creditor from drafting a deed of trust for the debtor to execute to create a lien on estate property, even before the deed is recorded.

Roth v. Plikaytis (In re Roth) · filed 2018-12-10(a)(4)

The Court disagrees with Plaintiff's argument and concludes that Debra's drafting of the DOT for James' execution constitutes an "act" to create a lien against the property of the estate.

Section 362(a)(4) prohibits a creditor from increasing and enforcing a lien against estate property to collect additional debts while the automatic stay is in effect.

Christie v. Fort Gibson State Bank · filed 2020-02-13(a)(4)

By increasing the value of its lien on the Travel Trailer, and later demanding additional funds before it would release its lien the Bank created, perfected and enforced a lien against property of the estate, a clear violation of § 362(a)(4).

Section 362(a)(4) stays postpetition acts to create, perfect, or enforce liens against estate property, but does not prevent an existing lien from attaching to property acquired postpetition when other law permits attachment.

Suhar v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation · filed 2020-03-26(a)(4)

Moreover, Section 362(a)(4) does not appear to address the scope of prepetition liens and their attachment to assets acquired by the bankruptcy estate after commencement of the case, as the Trustee suggests. Rather, it simply prohibits postpetition acts to create liens, perfect liens, or enforce liens, not the attachment of existing liens to property acquired postpetition if otherwise permitted by law.

Section 362(a)(4) prohibits enforcing a lien against estate property; a postpetition sale of a repossessed vehicle to enforce the lien violates the automatic stay.

Eleanor Lorraine Rakestraw · filed 2022-09-06(a)(4)

Although a creditor’s retention of a vehicle repossessed prepetition does not violate the provisions of the automatic stay in 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3), City of Chicago v. Fulton, ___ U.S. ___, 141 S.Ct. 585 (2021),2 the automatic stay in § 362(a)(4) prohibits the enforcement of a lien against property of the estate. Accordingly, the alleged postpetition sale of the Vehicle to enforce the lien violated the automatic stay.

Section 362(a)(4) makes a postpetition UCC-1 filing that seeks to perfect a lien against estate property a violation of the automatic stay and invalid.

Celsius Network LLC · filed 2023-09-12(a)(4)

Ms. Barstow’s postpetition filing of a UCC-1 financing statement also violates the automatic stay and is therefore, invalid.

Section 362(a)(4) bars perfection of an attorney’s charging lien against estate property during the automatic stay, and a lien perfected in violation of the stay is void.

Brandon Humberto Estanol and Alexandria Paige Estanol · filed 2025-05-14(a)(4)

Therefore, Counsel’s lien is void for violating the automatic stay.

Section 362(a)(4) stays an action to enforce a lien against property of the estate until the automatic stay terminates.

East Valley Cattle, LLC · filed 2025-09-25(a)(4)

The filing of such an action was prohibited by the automatic stay under § 362(a)(4), which stays any act to enforce any lien against property of the estate.

Section 362(a)(4) stays acts to create, perfect, or enforce a lien against property of the bankruptcy estate.

Landmark v. Schaefbauer (In Re Landmark) · filed 1984-08-17(a)(4)

The Court therefore finds that the recording of a real estate mortgage is an “act to ... perfect ... [a] lien against property of the estate” which is stayed by 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(4). It therefore follows that the act of Arvid Nasi in recording the mortgage in the instant case, regardless of the principals for whom he was acting as agent, was in violation of the automatic stay and was a nullity.

Section 362(a)(4) voids a lender’s attempt to create a lien against estate property after the bankruptcy petition is filed.

Thompson v. Margen · filed 1996-05-21(a)(4)

Under these precedents, section 549(c) has no application and the automatic stay voids the attempted lien.

Section 362(d)(1) permits modifying the automatic stay to let a divorce court determine, value, and divide marital property.

Appalachian Basin Capital LLC · filed 2022-08-30(d)(1)

After considering the parties’ arguments, the court is going to modify the stay and grant the relief requested, in part. The state court can determine what constitutes marital property, value any property, and reduce those findings to judgment, including a division and award of marital property.

Section 362(b)(2)(A)(iv) does not permit equitable distribution of property owned by a Chapter 13 debtor to proceed outside the automatic stay merely because the property may no longer be part of the estate.

Ta-Von Becker · filed 2021-10-06(b)(2)(A)(iv)

Nevertheless, the Court concurs with the decision in In re Jones and finds that the automatic stay prevents Mr. Becker from proceeding with equitable distribution in state court with respect to any property owned by the Debtor, including the West Wood Sage Property.

Section 362(a) stays a divorce court’s adjudication of property owned by a bankruptcy debtor while the bankruptcy stay is in effect.

Morris v. Morris · filed 2018-02-14(a)

As a result of the bankruptcy filing, the divorce proceeding was stayed to the extent that the divorce court lost jurisdiction over the property owned by Gerald.

Section 362(a)(3) bars division of bankruptcy estate property in a divorce proceeding without stay relief, and a resulting property division is void.

Aracely Vazquez · filed 2019-10-17(a)(3)

The state court’s division of property in Aracely’s and Horacio’s divorce case during the pendency of their bankruptcy cases without relief from the automatic stay is void and of no legal effect.

Section 362(a)(3) stays a divorce property division that exercises control over bankruptcy estate property without relief from the stay, and a division made in violation of the stay is void.

Horacio Vazquez · filed 2019-10-17(a)(3)

The state court’s division of property in Aracely’s and Horacio’s divorce case during the pendency of their bankruptcy cases without relief from the automatic stay is void and of no legal effect.

Section 362(a)(1) and (a)(6) stay postpetition divorce motions seeking to modify a prepetition property equalization judgment and recover the debt without stay relief.

Kendall Annemarie Hall · filed 2024-03-06(a)(1), (a)(6)

The Pray Motions violated subsections (a)(1) and (a)(6) of § 362.

Section 362 stays the equitable distribution of a debtor’s interest in marital property when a bankruptcy petition is filed.

Ishaq v. Ameen · filed 2012-09-28

While the filing of a bankruptcy petition does stay the equitable distribution of the debtor’s interest in marital property (Miley, id.), the court indicated that it possessed a copy of the “Agreed Relief from Stay,” signed by both parties, their counsel, and the bankruptcy trustee, and Ameen did not dispute the existence of the document.

The automatic stay applied to the appellate review of the alimony in gross determination.

Jones v. Tameka Lashea Jones (Appeal from Shelby Circuit Court: DR-18-900268). · filed 2024-01-31(b)(2)(A)(iv)

We conclude that the automatic-stay provision applies to divorce proceedings to the extent that they involve a determination of alimony in gross.

An appeal of an order granting relief from the automatic stay becomes moot after a completed foreclosure sale if the debtor did not obtain a stay pending appeal, because the appellate court cannot rescind the sale.

Meus v. WEatherford · filed 2018-02-14

When a debtor fails to obtain a stay pending appeal of an order granting a creditor relief from the automatic stay and allowing that creditor to foreclose on the debtor’s property, a completed foreclosure and sale of the property will render any appeal moot, as this Court is powerless to rescind the completed sale on appeal.

An order lifting the automatic stay under § 362(d) ordinarily does not preclude later litigation of the creditor’s underlying claim.

Parsley v. Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC · filed 2024-02-21(d)

It follows that orders granting a lift from the automatic stay should not typically carry preclusive effect.

After a creditor forecloses following relief from the § 362(d) stay, relief on appeal depends on remedies available under state law; § 363(m)’s good-faith provision does not apply.

West End Associates, L.P. v. Sea Green Equities · filed 1994-04-21(d)

The Court agrees with the Ninth Circuit as far as the applicability of the mootness rule in general, but finds that the pertinence of any exception to the rule may depend upon which bankruptcy code provision enabled the sale of the - asset. ... In relation to the pending appeal, the Court will not consider section 363(m)’s good faith provision in determining whether West End’s appeal is moot. The only remedy available to West End is that which may be provided under New Jersey law, and any requirement of a good faith purchase must be afforded therein.

An appeal from an order lifting an automatic stay under § 362(d) is moot if the debtor obtains no stay pending appeal and the property is foreclosed and resold.

Chaim Tornheim & Chaya Tornheim v. Source One Mortgage Services Corporation, Movant-Appellee · filed 1997-02-20(d)

When the appellant has failed to obtain a stay pending appeal, the foreclosure and resale of the property renders moot any appeal from an order lifting an automatic stay issued under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d).

Section 362 automatically stays claims against a debtor in bankruptcy but does not automatically stay claims against a nondebtor codefendant.

Elements of Hospitality, Inc. v. Oahu Electrical Services, LLC · filed 2025-03-17

A stay under § 362, however, does not automatically apply to other defendants.

Section 362’s automatic stay as to a debtor does not prevent a court from hearing a motion to withdraw as counsel for a nondebtor codefendant, and lifting the stay is unnecessary.

Holdco V LLC v. Puls · filed 2025-02-07

Accordingly, the bankruptcy stay as applied by this court due to the filing of defendant Chris Lyster will not prohibit this court from hearing Levy Goldenberg's request to withdraw. A lifting of a stay is not required ( id. ).

Section 362(a) automatically stays proceedings against the bankruptcy debtor but does not protect nondebtor codefendants.

Simmons v. Tehum Care Services, Inc. · filed 2023-04-20(a)

However, the automatic bankruptcy stay does not protect non-debtor codefendants.

Section 362 generally does not extend the automatic stay to a nonbankrupt codefendant.

General Star National Insurance Company v. Asset Realty LLC · filed 2023-05-15

However, as a general rule, the automatic stay under § 362 is not available to a non-bankrupt co-defendant.

Section 362(a)'s automatic stay does not itself apply to arbitrations against nondebtor entities when the debtor is not a defendant.

SVB Financial Group v. UBS Securities LLC · filed 2023-04-14(a)

Here, because SVB Securities, and not the Debtor, is a defendant in the New York Arbitration, and neither the Debtor nor SVB Securities is a defendant in the California Arbitration, the automatic stay does not apply to the Arbitrations.

Section 362(a)(1) may stay claims against a nondebtor codefendant when proceeding against that party would jeopardize the debtor’s assets because their interests are closely aligned.

Wisconsin Laborers Health Fund v. Dane County Contracting, LLC · filed 2023-04-13(a)(1)

But Richards provides no evidence or argument that a judgment against him would jeopardize the assets of Dane County Contracting’s bankruptcy estate, so he isn’t entitled to a stay under § 362(a)(1).

Section 362(a)(1) does not extend an automatic stay to a nondebtor on a speculative claim of indemnification by the debtor.

Funding Holding, LLC d/b/a LawCash v. Blue Ocean Partners LLC · filed 2023-04-18(a)(1)

The Court does not agree with Defendant Chase’s proffered reason for extending the automatic stay to him. ... Here, Chase cites to and explains certain common law doctrines of indemnification and subrogation, but does not meaningfully explain how Blue Ocean Partners LLC would actually be on the hook for the tort claims brought against him.

Section 362(a)(1) stays proceedings against the debtor, but its stay does not extend to a nondebtor codefendant without unusual circumstances affecting the bankruptcy estate.

Jama v. Wright County · filed 2023-02-27(a)(1)

In short, the Court will not extend the automatic bankruptcy stay to Ms. Hirsch because it is not convinced it has the authority to do so and is skeptical that a claim against her would immediately and adversely affect the MEnD estate in bankruptcy.

Section 362(a)(1) stays actions against a bankruptcy debtor but generally does not shield nondebtor codefendants.

Oryang v. Hamm (INMATE 2) · filed 2023-03-07(a)(1)

Although § 362(a)(1) stays Plaintiff’s action against Corizon Health, the scope of the automatic bankruptcy stay does not encompass the entirety of the action. The general rule is that the automatic stay does not shield non-debtor co-defendants.

Section 362(a)(1) does not automatically stay claims against a debtor’s codefendants.

Williams v. Corizon · filed 2023-03-15(a)(1)

However, the automatic stay does not apply to any other defendant in this case.

Section 362(a) does not stay proceedings against individual non-debtor defendants when affiliated entities file bankruptcy.

The Huntington National Bank v. Hard Rock Exploration, Inc. · filed 2018-02-16(a)

Also pursuant to § 362(a), the proceedings were not stayed as to the individual, non-debtor defendants.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay an action against a non-debtor defendant when the record shows no circumstances warranting an extension of the stay.

LG 2 Doe v. Jasinski · filed 2021-06-11(a)(1)

Here, the automatic stay provisions of 11 USC § 362 do not apply to defendant, a non-debtor, and the record lacks evidence of any circumstances that would warrant extension of the stay to defendant ( see Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v Oxford Venture Partners, LLC , 13 AD3d 89, 89 [1st Dept 2004]; Murnane Assoc. , 217 AD2d at 1003).

Section 362's automatic stay generally applies to a debtor's co-defendants only when claims against them rest on an alter ego theory.

Salas v. Postmates, LLC · filed 2022-06-13(a)(1)

Generally, the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 only applies to co-Defendants when the claims against the non-debtor co-defendants are brought under an alter ego theory.

Section 362(a)(1) generally stays actions against the debtor but does not shield non-debtor co-defendants absent unusual circumstances.

Ray v. Tehum Care Services, Inc. (INMATE 1) · filed 2023-03-07(a)(1)

The general rule is that the automatic stay does not shield non-debtor co-defendants.

Section 362(a) automatically stays claims against the debtor but does not automatically stay claims against non-debtor codefendants.

Reid v. Centurion · filed 2023-08-24(a)

There is NO STAY as to the non-debtor Defendants. Thus, those Defendants must proceed, personally, in this case.

Section 362(a)(1) generally stays claims against a bankruptcy debtor, but does not protect non-debtor defendants unless the bankruptcy court extends the stay to them.

Hall v. Valaire · filed 2024-11-21(a)(1)

None of those Debtors are named as a defendant in this case. Because the automatic stay does not protect the defendants and the bankruptcy court has not enjoined litigation of claims against them, this case may proceed.

Section 362(a)(1) stays actions against the debtor but does not extend the automatic stay to non-debtor defendants without an injunction under § 105.

Bowling v. Wellpath Inc · filed 2024-12-04(a)(1)

The same is true here; no preliminary injunction has been issued, and neither this Court nor the bankruptcy court can otherwise “extend” the automatic stay to non-debtor defendants.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not cover a non-debtor defendant merely because its employer has filed for bankruptcy.

Haywood v. Watson · filed 2024-12-04(a)(1)

The same is true here; no preliminary injunction has been issued, and neither this Court nor the bankruptcy court can otherwise “extend” the automatic stay to non-debtor defendants.

Section 362(a)(1) stays actions against the debtor, but its automatic stay does not extend to non-debtor defendants without a separate injunction.

Levitan v. Maclean · filed 2024-12-04(a)(1)

The same is true here; no preliminary injunction has been issued, and neither this Court nor the bankruptcy court can otherwise “extend” the automatic stay to non-debtor defendants.

Section 362(a) does not authorize a bankruptcy court to stay proceedings against a defendant who is not a debtor.

(PC) Wilson v. Tuolomne County · filed 2024-12-10(a)

In this circuit, section 362(a) does not empower bankruptcy courts to stay proceedings against non-debtor defendants, like Defendant Teague.

Section 362(a) does not stay proceedings against non-debtor defendants.

G. v. Tulare County · 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 proceedings against a debtor but does not extend the automatic stay to non-debtor defendants.

Regalado v. Fresno County · filed 2024-12-13(a)

Because the Court is persuaded by In re Miller, the Court declines to stay proceedings against the non-debtor defendants in this action, Defendants County of Fresno and Fresno County Sheriff’s Department, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

Section 362(a) stays an appeal against a bankrupt debtor but permits it to proceed against non-debtors when their claims will not immediately harm the debtor’s estate.

Abadi v. Fauci · filed 2025-07-08(a)

Therefore, we will continue to stay the appeal as to Silver Airways, but we will permit the appeal to proceed as to the other appellees.

Section 362(a) does not automatically stay claims against non-debtor defendants absent unusual circumstances.

Brown · filed 2025-12-02(a)

There does not appear to be any automatic stay applicable here under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), nor is the Court aware of any “unusual circumstances” justifying a stay with respect to any non-debtor defendants in this case.

Section 362 provides an automatic stay that can protect a debtor and wholly owned subsidiaries with identical interests from litigation.

In Re Engineered Products Corporation · filed 1987-10-13

In this case, Eastmet's March 12, 1986, Motion to Extend the Stay should have been granted in order that Harry Davies, Zalk and UIPE be protected, along with Eastmet, from the Illinois lawsuit. In denying that motion, the bankruptcy court committed error.

Section 362’s automatic stay generally does not extend to actions against a debtor’s non-debtor co-defendants.

Thomas v. Acands Inc · filed 2002-01-03

First, there was no 11 U.S.C. § 362 automatic stay of actions available to the non-debtor co-defendants of the debtor, Federal-Mogul/Gasket Holdings.

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

Gill v. Acands Inc · filed 2002-01-03

First, there was no 11 U.S.C. § 362 automatic stay of actions available to the non-debtor co-defendants of the debtor, Federal-Mogul/Gasket Holdings.

Section 362 stays claims against a bankruptcy debtor but generally does not stay actions involving the debtor's non-debtor co-defendants.

Sams v. Alcoa Inc · filed 2002-01-03

First, there was no 11 U.S.C. § 362 automatic stay of actions available to the non-debtor co-defendants of the debtor, Federal-Mogul/Gasket Holdings. Therefore, while § 362 acted to stay any claims against the Federal-Mogul entities, including Garlock’s putative claim of contribution, it carried no force to stay actions as between the remaining co-defendants, the debtor and the various plaintiffs.

Section 362 automatically stays actions against the debtor and estate property when a bankruptcy case begins, with limited application to non-debtor co-defendants.

Poore 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 stays actions against a debtor but rarely stays actions against non-debtor co-defendants, except when the debtor and co-defendant have such an identity that the debtor is the real party defendant.

Smith v. ACands, 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(a) stays claims against the debtor but ordinarily does not stay actions against non-debtor co-defendants.

Brame v. Able Supply Co · filed 2002-01-03(a)

First, there was no 11 U.S.C. § 362 automatic stay of actions available to the non-debtor co-defendants of the debtor, Federal-Mogul/Gasket Holdings. Therefore, while § 362 acted to stay any claims against the Federal-Mogul entities, including Garlock’s putative claim of contribution, it carried no force to stay actions as between the remaining co-defendants, the debtor and the various plaintiffs.

Section 362(a)(1) generally does not extend the automatic stay to solvent co-defendants independently liable for the debtor's obligations unless an identity of interest exists.

Fleet Business Credit, L.L.C. v. Wings Restaurants, Inc. · filed 2003-04-10(a)(1)

The Court holds that appointing a receiver over the real property of Huge, a solvent co-defendant of Wings, does not violate the automatic stay in the Wings bankruptcy proceeding based on the fact that Huge is separately and independently liable for obligations to Fleet under the Loan and Security Agreement and has expressly waived any right of indemnification against Wings.

Section 362(a)'s automatic stay generally does not extend to non-debtor guarantors in Chapter 11 cases.

Gmi Grp., Inc. v. Unique Funding Solutions, LLC (In re Gmi Grp., Inc.) · filed 2019-04-23(a)

As a general matter, the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) does not extend to non-debtor guarantors in Chapter 11 cases.

Section 362(a)'s automatic stay generally does not protect nondebtors; protecting them may require an injunction under section 105.

Calpine Corp. v. Nevada Power Co. (In Re Calpine Corp.) · filed 2006-10-25(a)

Because non-debtors do not fall within the protection of the automatic stay, at times section 105 must be invoked on their behalf to prevent creditors from frustrating an otherwise-viable reorganization effort by pursuing actions against them.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays actions against a debtor when bankruptcy begins but does not automatically stay actions against a non-debtor.

Everitt v. PNEUMO ABEX, LLC · filed 2009-12-10(a)(1)

Here, Pneumo sought an order from the Federal Mogul bankruptcy court granting it the protection of the automatic stay, but its efforts were rejected. And regardless of what Pneumo or plaintiffs may have believed regarding Pneumo’s entitlement to such protection, the fact is, there was never a time when the automatic stay applied to Pneumo. As the cited cases make clear, while the automatic stay did apply automatically to the debtors immediately upon the filing of the bankruptcy petition, it did not apply “automatically” to Pneumo, and in fact, based on the bankruptcy court’s ruling, it never applied to Pneumo.

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

In Re Thornburg Mortgage, Inc. Securities Litigation · filed 2010-01-27(a)

Because TMI’s bankruptcy proceeding continues in the United States Bankruptcy Court in Maryland, the Court decides this motion— to the extent that it can — only as to the Defendants other than TMI. ... Fortier v. Dona Anna Plaza Partners, 747 F.2d 1324, 1330 (10th Cir.1984) (“The language of [11 U.S.C. § 362] extends stay proceedings only to actions ‘against the debtor.’ There is nothing in the statute which purports to extend the stay to causes of action against solvent co-defendants of the debtor.”); ... 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) (“[A] petition filed under section 301 [voluntary petition] ... of this title ... operates as a stay ... of ... the ... continuation ... of a judicial ... proceeding against the debtor that was ... commenced before the commencement of the case under this title .... ”).

Section 362 does not prevent defendants from protecting their legal rights in proceedings initiated by a debtor.

Bryner v. LeBaron (In Re Bryner) · filed 2010-03-15(a)(1) and (a)(3)

The bankruptcy court correctly determined that the automatic stay provisions of § 362 did not prevent the Gillespies from protecting their legal rights in the proceedings initiated against them by Bryner.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays an action against a debtor, but it does not automatically stay an action against non-debtors alleged to be the debtor’s alter egos.

Pavers & Road Builders District Council Welfare Fund v. Core Contracting of N.Y., LLC · filed 2015-08-18(a)(1)

In short, the automatic stay is automatic as applied to a debtor because that is what the statute says. As to non-debtors, it is relief that is available, but it is not automatic. This action shall therefore continue against the non-debtors under the schedule previously set unless the Bankruptcy Court orders otherwise.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays proceedings against the debtor; non-debtor codefendants do not receive that protection merely because they are sued alongside the debtor.

Moradian v. Rideshare Port Management CA2/3 · filed 2022-01-03(a)(1)

The contention that the bankruptcy stay rendered the arbitration award subject to the non-debtor defendants’ post-judgment attack fails for two reasons. First, as the trial court recognized, the non-debtor defendants were not subject to a bankruptcy stay when the arbitrator issued the final award, because the bankruptcy court had terminated the non-debtor injunction several months earlier.

Section 362(b)(4) and (5) except entry of a civil penalty judgment in a government regulatory enforcement action from the automatic stay.

Federal Trade Commission v. Wright (In Re Wright) · filed 1995-10-25(b)(4), (b)(5)

At its May 5, 1993 status hearing the District Court rejected this very argument, finding that entry of the District Court Judgment was excepted from the automatic stay by 11 U.S.C. §§ 362(b)(4) and (5). This Court concurs with the ruling of the District Court.

Section 362(b)(4) permits the SEC to continue an enforcement action against a debtor through entry of a money judgment despite the debtor’s bankruptcy petition.

United States Securities & Exchange Commission v. Hansen · filed 2018-02-27(b)(4)

The filing of a bankruptcy petition does not operate as a stay against SEC enforcement actions and the SEC may prosecute an action through and including the entry of a money judgment against a debtor.