11 U.S.C. § 362

A creditor waives the right to automatic termination of the stay under § 362(e) by acting inconsistently with its time limits, including seeking a continuance and failing to assert the right when the deadline passes.

Bugg v. Cyril Gray · filed 2014-11-24(e)

Only after the contempt proceedings were initiated did the Buggs argue that the stay had expired by operation of § 362(e). They are too late. Their actions were inconsistent with an intent on their part to insist that the court enter either a final order or an order continuing the stay pending conclusion of the final hearing within the § 362(e) timeframe. If the Buggs believed that the stay had lapsed on January 12 then they should have moved to enforce their rights at that time. They failed to do so and therefore the Buggs have waived any right they may have once possessed under § 362(e).

Section 362(a) takes effect when the bankruptcy petition is filed and does not invalidate a foreclosure sale completed before filing.

In re Buckskin Realty Inc. · filed 2015-01-06(a)

Absent nunc pro tunc relief, the foreclosure sale could not have violated the automatic stay, because the automatic stay did not go into effect until the Petition was filed.

A Chapter 11 petition by an appellant can trigger § 362(a)'s automatic stay of a pending appeal.

Wooters v. Unitech International, Inc. · filed 2015-11-24(a)

This appeal is stayed pursuant to the Suggestion of Bankruptcy filed on November 11, 2015 indicating that appellant, Tim Wooters, has filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11, United States Code, in Case 15-80332, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) (2000) (automatic stay in bankruptcy).

Section 362 automatically stays further action in an appeal when a party files a bankruptcy petition.

Tuan Do and Chau Nguyen v. Man Do, Individually and D/B/A Mr. Do Coin Laundry and Intervenor, Mr. Doman Investments, Inc · filed 2016-04-07

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362, further action in this cause is automatically stayed.

The automatic stay terminates immediately when the bankruptcy case is dismissed.

C. Man, LLC v. Melon Partners, LLC CA2/7 · filed 2016-05-16

Unlike an order granting relief from the automatic stay, an order dismissing a bankruptcy case is effective, and terminates the automatic stay, immediately.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays the commencement or continuation of preexisting claims against a debtor when the bankruptcy petition is filed.

Pryor v. B Squared, Inc. · filed 2016-05-26(a)(1)

An automatic stay prohibiting “the commencement or continuation” of any preexisting claim against B Squared arose on March 10, 2009, when B Squared filed a chapter 11 bankruptcy petition, and remained in effect until March 11, 2011, when the bankruptcy court granted discharge and entered the accompanying injunction.

Section 362(a) does not bar Tax Court proceedings after a Bankruptcy Court order approving a stipulated settlement terminates the automatic stay as to the debtor.

Blancato v. Cir · filed 2016-06-02(a)

Contrary to Blancato’s contention, the Tax Court did not err in lifting the automatic stay after the Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving a stipulated settlement that terminated the stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) as to Blancato.

Section 362(a) stays an appeal when an appellant files for bankruptcy protection.

Anderson v. Merry Fiske Anderson · filed 2016-07-22(a)

Accordingly, this appeal is stayed. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a); Tex. R. App. P. 8.2.

Section 362 automatically stays further action in an appeal when the appellant files a bankruptcy petition.

Alsup v. Hickory Trail Hospital and Angela J. Devinney, LPC · filed 2016-08-30

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362, further action in this cause is automatically stayed.

Section 362(a) stays a pending appeal when the appellant files a bankruptcy petition.

Service Employees International Union Local 5 v. Professional Janitoral Service of Houston, Inc. · filed 2017-01-12(a)

This appeal is stayed pursuant to the “Notice of Bankruptcy,” that appellant Service Employees International Union Local 5 filed in this Court on December 27, 2016, stating that appellant has filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11, United States Code, in Case 16-80294, In re Terence J. Martinez, Debtor, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) (2000) (automatic stay in bankruptcy).

A debtor’s prepetition contractual waiver of the automatic stay is unenforceable as a matter of public policy and does not entitle the creditor to stay relief.

In re Jeff Benfield Nursery, Inc. · filed 2017-01-24(d)

However, this Court concludes that such provisions, which effectively render the automatic stay meaningless, are unenforceable as a matter of public policy. Upholding pre-petition waivers of this sort deprives debtors of the “breathing spell” contemplated by the Bankruptcy Code and thwarts the congressional intent underlying imposition of the automatic stay.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays an appeal when the debtor was a defendant in the underlying trial court action.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Star Golden Enter.'s, LLC · filed 2017-04-21(a)(1)

Consequently, an appeal is automatically stayed if the debtor was the defendant in the underlying trial court action.

Section 362 automatically stays further action in a pending appeal when the appellant files for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

Helson Pacheco-Serrant, M.D. v. Munoz · filed 2017-06-12

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362, any further action in this appeal is automatically stayed.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays an appeal when the debtor was the defendant in the underlying trial court action because the appeal continues that action.

Resources Grp., LLC v. Alessi & Koenig, LLC · filed 2017-08-17(a)(1)

An appeal, for purposes of the automatic stay, is considered a continuation of the action in the trial court. Consequently, an appeal is automatically stayed if the debtor was the defendant in the underlying trial court action.

Section 362(a)(7) applies to postpetition setoffs of prepetition debts, so a setoff completed before the bankruptcy filing does not violate the automatic stay.

Faasoa v. Army & Air Force Exchange Service (In re Faasoa) · filed 2017-10-10(a)(7)

Section 362(a)(7) is inapposite since that applies to post-petition setoff of prepetition debts.

The automatic stay against collection of a prepetition debt ends when the bankruptcy case closes, is dismissed, or reaches discharge; reopening the case does not restore the stay absent a bankruptcy court order.

Ashmore v. Commissioner · filed 2017-11-27(a)(6)

When the bankruptcy case is closed, dismissed, or discharged, the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. sec. 362(a)(6) is terminated, and the reopening of a case does not reimpose the stay, absent an order from the bankruptcy court.

Section 362’s automatic stay cannot be waived by a private pre-bankruptcy agreement, including a promise not to resist a motion for relief from the stay.

Matter of Pease · filed 1996-03-22

I therefore conclude that provisions in private pre-bankruptcy agreements, which purport to waive the automatic stay or provide that a debtor will not resist a motion for relief from stay, are not enforceable, per se, as a matter of federal bankruptcy law.

Section 362 permits a debtor to waive the automatic stay through a pre-petition agreement supported by valuable consideration.

In Re Excelsior Henderson Motorcycle Manufacturing Co. · filed 2002-02-11(d)(1), (d)(2)

Having determined that the Debtor received valuable consideration in exchange for a benefit it would receive under the Bankruptcy Code, the Court agrees with the holding in Atrium, and finds that the provision waiving the automatic stay is specifically enforceable.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a debtor's waiver was approved as part of a consensual plan in an earlier bankruptcy.

In re A. Hirsch Realty, LLC · filed 2018-04-13(d)(1)

The Court concludes that the waiver of the protection of the automatic stay constitutes "cause" under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) for relief from the automatic stay and that the Debtor has not satisfied that burden of demonstrating that Blue Hill is adequately protected or otherwise not entitled to rely upon the waiver of the automatic stay approved by Judge Hillman as part of a consensual plan of reorganization in its prior case.

Section 362(b)(3) allows a creditor to file a continuation statement during bankruptcy but does not require it.

FirsTrust Bank v. Indus. Bank (In re Essex Constr., LLC) · filed 2018-09-25(b)(3)

But because the current 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(3) allows a creditor to file a continuation statement does not mean the creditor is required to file the continuation statement.

Section 362(a)(4) does not stay the filing of a continuation statement that maintains a previously perfected security interest during bankruptcy.

John Deere Co. v. Alamosa National Bank · filed 1989-12-21(a)(4)

Nor do the purposes for § 362(a)(4) support a construction that would stay the filing of a continuation statement.

Section 362(a)(4) does not bar filing a notice that merely extends a previously filed tax lien.

In Re Stuber · filed 1992-06-30(a)(4)

The Court agrees with the reasoning in In re Morton, and finds that IRS’s filing of the Notice of Tax Lien, which extended a previously filed lien, did not violate the automatic stay.

Section 362(a)(4) permits a creditor to file an addendum required by state law to continue an existing mortgage lien when the filing creates no new rights.

In Re R.L. LARSON, Also Known as Raymond Larson, Debtor. R.L. LARSON, Also Known as Raymond Larson, Appellant, v. NORWES · filed 1992-11-05(a)(4)

As North Dakota law required Norwest to file the addendum to preserve its existing mortgage, we have no hesitation in stating that the courts below were correct — Norwest’s filing did not violate section 362(a)(4) ... and was indeed effective to continue its lien.

Section 362(a)(4) stays the filing of a continuation statement to maintain a perfected lien against estate property.

Bond Enterprises, Inc. v. Western Bank of Farmington (In Re Bond Enterprises, Inc.) · filed 1985-10-16(a)(4)

However, the filing of a continuation statement, which operates to continue the effectiveness of a perfected security interest, is clearly an act to perfect a lien against property of a debtor within the meaning of § 362(a)(4). Thus, defendant’s filing of a continuation statement would have been a violation of the stay imposed by plaintiff’s filing of its petition in bankruptcy.

A foreclosure sale that violates the automatic stay is void, and a lienholder may raise that voidness in a Nevada quiet title action.

Bank of New York Mellon v. 732 Hardy Way Trust · filed 2021-06-25(a)

Because the Bank has standing, its interest as a creditor is protected under Nevada law, and the HOA foreclosure sale in violation of the bankruptcy stay was void, applicable precedent compels us to conclude that the Bank has superior title.

Section 362(c)(1) renders HOA foreclosure notices recorded while the automatic stay is in effect void, along with the ensuing foreclosure sale.

Gundala Vs. Bac Home Loans Serv., Lp · filed 2021-04-16(c)(1)

Because the above-mentioned notices were both recorded while the automatic stay was in effect, the district court correctly determined that they were void and that the ensuing HOA foreclosure sale was also void.

Section 362 does not authorize a trustee to avoid a transfer for violating the automatic stay.

Morton v. Kievit (In Re Vallecito Gas, LLC) · filed 2011-07-19

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Trustee may not rely upon § 362 to avoid the ORRI Assignments or anything else.

Section 362 requires a creditor who learns that it repossessed estate property after a bankruptcy filing to make reasonable, prompt efforts to restore the status quo; reasonable efforts to do so do not amount to a willful stay violation.

Commercial Credit Corp. v. Reed · filed 1993-04-29(h)

The Court is persuaded by the cases which add the element of reasonableness to the creditor’s duty to immediately restore the status quo. The Court is further satisfied that CCC made all reasonable attempts to immediately restore the status quo.

The automatic stay’s usual rule that acts violating it are void has narrow exceptions for subsequent bona fide purchasers and encumbrancers without notice under sections 549 and 550.

Groupe v. Hill (In Re Hill) · filed 1993-07-29(a)(3)

Sections 549 and 550 provide recognized narrow statutory exceptions, for the benefit of subsequent bona fide purchasers and encumbrancers without notice, to the majority rule that actions taken in violation of the automatic stay are void.

Section 362(h) treats deliberate conduct taken with knowledge of a bankruptcy filing as a willful stay violation even when the actor believes state law permits the conduct.

In Re Dencklau · filed 1993-08-17(h)

The willfulness requirement of § 362(h) refers to deliberate conduct with knowledge of the bankruptcy filing. ... Although the sheriff believed he was acting in compliance with state law, his actions were taken deliberately with knowledge of the bankruptcy petition.

Section 362(a)(6) generally makes assessments made in violation of the automatic stay void, but a debtor’s affirmative conduct can make them voidable under the circumstances.

Bronson v. United States · filed 1993-07-30(a)(6)

The court finds that plaintiff’s actions are sufficient to negate the policies of the automatic stay. ... Therefore, the assessments in violation of the stay, under these specific circumstances, were not void, but voidable.

Documents tendered to a court clerk during an automatic stay have no legal effect while the stay lasts but may be treated as filed when the stay is lifted.

Chunn v. Chunn · filed 1996-08-08(a)(1)

Obviously, the prematurely filed documents remain without legal effect during the automatic stay. ... The prematurely filed appeal bonds and the documents listed in footnote five are deemed filed immediately after the automatic stay was lifted.

A tax foreclosure conducted in violation of the stays under § 362(a)(1) and (a)(3) is void and has no effect.

Burg v. City of Buffalo (In Re Burg) · filed 2003-07-11(a)(1), (a)(3)

As a violation of the automatic stay provisions of section 362(a)(1) and (3), the purported tax foreclosure of 75 Baxter Street was void and of no effect.

State court actions taken against a debtor in violation of the automatic stay are void.

In Re De La Garza · filed 2004-02-17

In light of the aforementioned precedent, as well as our own Court’s prior opinions, we hold that all state court actions taken against a debtor in violation of an automatic stay pursuant to the bankruptcy code are void.

Entry of a judgment and recording of its transcript after the bankruptcy petition violate the automatic stay and are void and of no effect.

In Re Newell · filed 2004-03-19(a)

The entry of the judgment and the recording of the transcript of the judgment were in violation of the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), and were therefore void and of no effect.

Section 362's automatic stay has no good-faith-purchaser exception under § 549(c).

Bustamante v. Cueva (In Re Cueva) · filed 2004-05-19(b)

In short, § 549(c) is not a exception to the automatic stay imposed by § 362, and there is no authority to support Bustamante’s position to the contrary.

Actions taken in violation of the automatic stay are void, and termination of the stay does not validate them absent retroactive validation by the bankruptcy court.

Levitas v. Barraza · filed 2004-07-29

Actions taken against a debtor in violation of a bankruptcy stay are void and without legal effect. ... However, absent such an action by the bankruptcy court, an action that would have been initiated by appellees in this case, the mere termination of the stay does not validate actions taken in violation of it. ... Accordingly, because the foreclosures and subsequent sales of the property violated the bankruptcy stay and, thus, were void, we conclude the trial court erred if it rendered summary judgment on this basis.

Section 362(a)(1) prohibits filing a complaint against a debtor during the automatic stay, and a filing in violation of the stay is a nullity.

Storini v. Hortiales · filed 2005-03-18(a)(1)

While we note the split of authority on the subject, we conclude that the clear language of the Bankruptcy Code prohibited the filing of a complaint against defendant during the pendency of the bankruptcy action ... The purported filing was therefore a nullity, and the motion to dismiss should have been granted.

Section 362(a)(1) makes a postpetition counterclaim on a prepetition debt and the resulting entry of default void, leaving no basis for a later judgment on that counterclaim.

Lone Star Security & Video, Inc. v. Gurrola (In Re Gurrola) · filed 2005-06-20(a)(1)

The various filings and the entry of default constituted the commencement or continuation of a judicial action against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the bankruptcy case or to recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case in violation of § 362(a)(1). ... Since the filing of the counterclaim and entry of default were “void” as stay violations, there was no counterclaim and no default upon which the state court could premise a judgment in favor of Lone Star.

Creating stock certificates after commencement of a bankruptcy case for shares held by the debtor violates the automatic stay and may be declared void by the bankruptcy court.

Peckover Children's Trust v. Yaquinto (In re Privacy Infrastructure, Inc.) · filed 2005-08-23

On that date, PII held the stock of DEI. No other person held a stock certificate of DEI stock. No other DEI stock certificate existed on that date. Peckover created DEI stock certificates after the commencement of the case. That act violated the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362 and may be declared void by this court.

Section 362 does not itself give a trustee authority to avoid a post-petition transfer; that authority comes from § 549.

Herrington v. Grant · filed 2006-02-13

Applying the reasoning in Pointer, the Trustee’s right to avoid post-petition transfers in this case is granted by § 549. Thus, the analyses of the bankruptcy court and district court of whether the Trustee’s assignee had the right under § 362 to avoid the tax sale is flawed.

A foreclosure sale conducted after the bankruptcy petition is filed without relief from the automatic stay is void.

First Shore Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Hudson (In Re Hudson) · filed 2006-09-14(a)

Since the foreclosure sale was conducted post-petition without relief from the automatic stay having been obtained, the foreclosure sale was void.

Section 362(a)(1) renders a complaint filed against a debtor during the automatic stay void, and counsel's mistake about the refiling deadline does not warrant equitable relief.

Lowenborg v. Oglebay Norton Co., Unpublished Decision (7-5-2007) · filed 2007-07-05(a)(1)

Thus, if a complaint is filed during the pendency of the stay, it is void and the trial court may strike it. ... Lowenborg's counsel is charged with knowing the law applicable to his own case, and equitable estoppel will not be employed in this case to correct counsel's mistake. ... Thus, we agree with the trial court that Lowenborg's refiled complaint is void and of no legal effect and the second assignment of error is overruled.

An action commenced in violation of the automatic stay and its resulting judgment are nullities when the creditor continues enforcement after learning of the bankruptcy petition.

Chen v. Dickerson · filed 2007-09-28(a)(1)

Because landlords here continued to enforce the judgment after they learned of the bankruptcy petition, and judicial action took place here in violation of a bankruptcy stay, to wit, the awarding and entry of a judgment in landlords’ favor, the Second Department rule of ... does not apply, and the more general ... rule should be applied treating both the petition and judgment as nullities.

An action commenced against a debtor during the automatic stay is a nullity that does not confer jurisdiction over the debtor or make the debtor a party to the action.

in Re: Robert Holeman Twist · filed 2007-12-05(a)(1)

The bankruptcy stay protects debtors from the commencement or continuation of an action against them. (49) This Court has expressly held that a suit filed against a debtor already under the protection of a bankruptcy stay is a nullity (50) --the trial court does not acquire jurisdiction over an action commenced during the automatic stay. (51) Therefore, the Bank's third-party action against Griggs while she was in bankruptcy had no legal effect, and Griggs never became a party to the action in the trial court.

A suit commenced against a debtor during the automatic stay is a nullity and does not make the debtor a party to the action.

Twist v. McALLEN NATIONAL BANK · filed 2007-12-05(a)(1)

Therefore, the Bank’s third-party action against Griggs while she was in bankruptcy had no legal effect, and Griggs never became a party to the action in the trial court.

Section 362(a) imposes the automatic stay upon filing an involuntary petition, and a creditor’s subsequent declaration of default and collection remedies that violate the stay are void.

In Re Student Finance Corp. · filed 2007-11-28(a)

The commencement of the involuntary chapter 11 petition gives rise to imposition of the automatic stay. ... It is well-settled law in this Circuit that any act post-petition by a creditor that violates the automatic stay under § 362 is void. ... CIT’s post-petition declaration of default and the exercise of certain of its collection remedies were, therefore, void.

Section 362 renders a complaint filed in violation of the automatic stay void, and any further remedy for the violation must be sought in bankruptcy court.

Dept. of Revenue v. Foote · filed 2008-03-17(a)(1), (k)

Acting in violation of the automatic stay rendered the department's first complaint void and had the further effect of resolving this matter in favor of taxpayer. Any further remedy for violation of the automatic stay must be sought in the bankruptcy court.

Violations of the automatic stay are void as a matter of law, and consent obtained through a prohibited IRS solicitation does not waive the stay’s protection.

Ellison v. Commissioner · filed 2008-04-09(a)(6)

Accordingly, the Court follows the majority of circuits in holding that violations of the automatic stay are void as a matter of law. In doing so, the Court holds that the IRS’s May 18, 1994 solicitation of the signed Form 2751 Notice of Proposed Assessment and July 11, 1994 assessment are void and without effect. ... The language of 11 U.S.C. § 362 does not create any such exception for a waiver and its legislative history does not support that result.

Actions taken in violation of Section 362(a)(1)'s automatic stay are voidable, and only the bankruptcy court with jurisdiction over the debtor's case may grant relief from that stay.

Bartlette v. Kmart Corp. · filed 2008-06-05(a)(1)

As such, actions taken in violation of the automatic stay provision are voidable. See In re Siciliano, 13 F.3d 748, 750 (3d Cir. 1994); Lampe v. Xouth, Inc., 952 F.2d 697, 700 (3d Cir. 1992). Moreover, “[o]nly the bankruptcy court with jurisdiction over a debtor’s case has the authority to grant relief from the stay of judicial proceedings against the debtor.” Maritime Elec. Co., 959 F.2d at 1204.

Section 362(a)(1) bars giving collateral estoppel effect against a debtor to findings made in a postpetition action against nondebtor corporations from which the debtor was severed, and such binding findings are void.

Adler v. Ng (In Re Adler) · filed 2008-09-15(a)(1)

In any event, if the factual findings made in the state proceeding with respect to the corporation were binding against the Debtor under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, such a result would violate the automatic stay and be void as a matter of law.

An action commenced against a debtor during the automatic stay is void ab initio, but an amended complaint filed after discharge can commence an action on nondischargeable claims.

Johnson v. JP Morgan Chase Bank · filed 2008-10-03(a)(1)

Accordingly, Ms. Johnson’s attempt to initiate this action against Mr. Bernstein during the pendency of the bankruptcy proceedings violated the automatic stay and is void ab initio. ... Because her complaint against Mr. Bernstein is void ab initio, Ms. Johnson properly initiated this action against Mr. Bernstein when she filed the FAC after his bankruptcy was discharged.

An order entered against a debtor while the automatic stay is in effect is void, and vacating it does not require a showing of excusable default or a meritorious defense.

Valiotis v. Psaroudis · filed 2010-01-05(a)(1)

The order, insofar as it pertained to the appellant, issued when a stay was in effect during the appellant’s bankruptcy proceeding, was not merely voidable, but void (see Rexnord Holdings, Inc. v Bidermann, 21 F3d 522 [1994]; In re Best Payphones, Inc., 279 BR 92, 97-98 [SD NY 2002]; Carr v McGriff, 8 AD3d 420, 423 [2004]). Since the order insofar as it pertained to the appellant was void, the appellant did not have to establish an excusable default or a meritorious defense for its vacatur.

Section 362(a) prohibits a creditor from asserting an equitable lien in an adversary complaint when doing so continues a prepetition action and enforces the lien.

Costa Transports, Inc. v. Last (In Re Last) · filed 2010-12-08(a)(1)-(6)

On the other hand, by including an equitable lien claim in its adversary complaint Costa Transports violated the automatic stay under § 362(a)(l)-(6). For example, asserting an equitable lien is a continuation of the State Court Fraudulent Transfer Action and is most certainly an act to enforce a lien.

Section 362(a) makes a postpetition transfer of property void when the debtor still owned the property at filing and the transfer violates the automatic stay.

In re Betchan · filed 2015-01-29(a)

Based on these statutes, this court concludes that there was no valid transfer of Ms. Betchan’s home to the Bank prior to Ms. Betchan filing her bankruptcy petition and, further, that the post-petition transfer is void because it was in violation of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

Section 362(a)(1) makes an action filed against a debtor during the bankruptcy stay to pursue a prepetition claim void from the outset.

Garcia v. Sklar · filed 2021-04-20(a)(1)

As the filing of the District Court Action was void ab initio, there is effectively no case against the Debtor pending in the District Court.

Section 362(a)(1) makes a lawsuit filed against a debtor during bankruptcy on a prepetition claim void from its inception.

Nosson Sklar · filed 2021-04-20(a)(1)

As the filing of the District Court Action was void ab initio, there is effectively no case against the Debtor pending in the District Court.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays an appeal against a debtor upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition, and an appellate order entered in violation of the stay is void even if the court had no notice of the filing.

MTGLQ Investors, L.P. v. United Guaranty Residential Insurance Company of North Carolina · filed 2023-02-16(a)(1)

The court did not receive notice of Frederick's bankruptcy until after it entered the SDO in this appeal. Nevertheless, the SDO is void.

Section 362(a)(1) makes an attempt to commence a lawsuit against a debtor during the automatic stay void and without effect.

M.B. v. East Carolina Commercial Services, LLC · filed 2025-02-11(a)(1)

Thus, because of the automatic stay, M.B.’s October 5, 2020, attempt to commence this lawsuit by serving East Carolina with the summons and complaint was “void and without effect,” id.

An eviction order entered while the automatic stay under § 362(a)(1) is in effect is void.

Lewis v. Sfr Jv-2 Property, LLC · filed 2025-06-27(a)(1)

Because the automatic stay was in effect when the eviction order was issued, we accept Appellee’s confession of error, reverse the order as void, and remand for further proceedings.

Section 362(a) stays foreclosure sales of estate property, and a sale that violates the stay is ordinarily void.

Little v. Bago (In Re Bago) · filed 1993-01-05(a)

Here, Home Savings conducted its foreclosure sale of property of the estate in violation of the automatic stay. Such an act will, under normal circumstances, render the transaction void.

Section 362(a)(6) uses “assess” to mean an act beyond merely fixing or determining the amount of a claim.

Hartman v. United States (In Re Hartman) · filed 1990-02-14(a)(6)

The use of “collect” and “recover” alongside “assess” in § 362(a)(6) (“any act to collect, assess, or recover a claim against the debtor”) evidences that “assess” implies something more than the fixing or determining of an amount due.

Section 362 stay protections may be granted provisionally to a Chapter 15 debtor before recognition of a foreign main proceeding.

In Re Vitro, SAB De CV · filed 2011-06-24

Thus, protections afforded under §§ 362 and 105 are available to Vitro SAB prior to recognition of the foreign main proceeding. The Court finds that it is empowered under sections 1519(a), 362 and 105 of the Bankruptcy Code to issue the Preliminary Injunction in favor of Vitro SAB to protect its assets, until such time as a determination on recognition is made.

Section 362 stay protections are available to protect a Chapter 15 debtor’s assets before recognition of a foreign main proceeding through provisional relief under § 1519(a).

Vitro, S.A.B. de C.V. v. ACP Master, Ltd. (In re Vitro, S.A.B. de C.V.) · filed 2011-06-24

The Court finds that it is empowered under sections 1519(a), 362 and 105 of the Bankruptcy Code to issue the Preliminary Injunction in favor of Vitro SAB to protect its assets, until such time as a determination on recognition is made.

Section 362 stays a U.S. citizen’s postpetition effort in a foreign court to enlarge his control over a debtor’s assets, even if the effort does not directly deplete the estate.

In the Matter Of: Rimsat, Ltd., Debtor. Paul E. Underwood, Trustee v. Carl B. Hilliard, Jr. · filed 1996-11-21(a)(1), (a)(3)

By going back to the Nevis court for an order enlarging his powers over the assets of the debtor he violated the automatic stay of proceedings relating to the debtor’s estate that went into effect when the bankruptcy petition was filed.

Section 362's automatic stay does not apply when the debtor is in a foreign bankruptcy.

Schimmelpenninck v. Byrne · filed 1999-07-29(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.

Section 362(a) automatically stays continued litigation and lien enforcement against a debtor upon a Chapter 11 filing, including a receivership proceeding in another country.

In Re Gold & Honey, Ltd. · filed 2009-08-21(a)

The appointment of the Receivers in Israel was a clear violation of the automatic stay. It is axiomatic that when the Chapter 11 Cases were filed, the automatic stay went into effect. The stay automatically enjoined the continuation of any litigation against GH Ltd. and GH LP, and automatically enjoined continuing lien enforcement against GH Ltd. and GH LP to enforce a prepetition claim against the debtor.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not apply to a debtor in a section 304 ancillary proceeding.

In Re Klaus Hubert Goerg, Debtor. Klaus Hubert Goerg v. Parungao · filed 1988-05-18

Thus, for example, the debtor is not entitled to the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 (1982), nor is the debtor entitled to a discharge of its debts upon completion of the section 304 proceeding.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not arise from an ancillary proceeding under § 304.

Haarhuis v. Kunnan Enterprises, Ltd. · filed 1998-08-05

A § 304 proceeding, being ancillary, does not enjoy the benefit of the 11 U.S.C. § 362 automatic stay occasioned by the filing of an initial domestic petition in a U.S. bankruptcy court.

Section 362 does not automatically stay U.S. litigation merely because the debtor is in liquidation in England.

Itel Containers International Corporation v. Atlanttrafik Express Service Ltd. · filed 1990-07-16

We note that the AES Ltd. liquidation proceedings were brought in England, and that the United States bankruptcy laws therefore did not afford protection against litigation automatically, see 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362 (1988), and we have seen no indication in the record that any representative of the corporation applied for protection in the bankruptcy court against proceedings in this country, see id. Sec. 304.

Section 362 does not automatically stay litigation in the United States when the debtor's liquidation proceeding was brought in England.

Itel Containers International Corp. v. Atlanttrafik Express Service Ltd. · filed 1990-07-16

We note that the AES Ltd. liquidation proceedings were brought in England, and that the United States bankruptcy laws therefore did not afford protection against litigation automatically, see 11 U.S.C. § 362 (1988), and we have seen no indication in the record that any representative of the corporation applied for protection in the bankruptcy court against proceedings in this country, see id. § 304.

Section 362(a)(1) does not bar voluntary dismissal of a proceeding against the debtor when dismissal does not harm the debtor or favor one creditor.

BMO Harris Bank N.A. v. Singh · filed 2022-02-17(a)(1)

... dismissal here does not constitute a “continuation” of a judicial proceeding against the debtor in violation of the automatic stay.

Section 362(a) permits a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action against a debtor when dismissal does not continue the litigation or conflict with the purposes of the automatic stay.

Hancock Whitney Bank v. Mason · filed 2021-11-23(a)

Additionally, dismissal on Plaintiff’s voluntary motion for dismissal before Defendants filed either an answer or a motion for summary judgment does not require consideration of the causes of action or claims in this action and thus “would not constitute a continuation of the judicial proceedings.”

Section 362(a)(1) requires a plaintiff to obtain relief from the automatic stay before moving to voluntarily dismiss an action against the debtor.

In Re Westwood Lumber, Inc. · filed 1990-05-01(a)(1)

The bank should have first requested relief from the stay before filing its motion for voluntary nonsuit.

Section 362(a)(1) does not prohibit a creditor from voluntarily dismissing a pending action against the debtor when the dismissal harms neither the debtor nor the debtor’s creditors.

Weaver v. Jock · filed 1986-07-24(a)(1)

Jock’s non-suit was not the type of action that was prohibited by the automatic stay because it did not frustrate the two-fold purpose behind the stay. Therefore, Jock’s non-suit against Nations did not violate the automatic stay because it did not harm Nations or prejudice or benefit any of his creditors.

Section 362(a)(1) bars a third party from filing a claim against the debtor in state court after the bankruptcy case begins.

Wes-Mar Group, Inc. v. Womack (In Re Malkove & Womack, Inc.) · filed 1990-12-07(a)(1)

The bankruptcy case was commenced January 19, 1990, and the 3rd party defendant’s claim against the debtor was filed in the state courts on February 28,1990, thus, violating the automatic stay provided by 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1).

Section 362 stays an action against a debtor that files for bankruptcy, but does not prevent the action from proceeding against the debtor’s codefendants.

Dillon v. Fibreboard Corporation · filed 1990-12-07(a)(1)

Accordingly, the automatic stay provision, 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362, which stays judicial actions "against the debtor," prohibits us from adjudicating the plaintiff-appellant's claims against Celotex. ... We are not enjoined from proceeding with this matter, however, as to Celotex' remaining codefendants.

Section 362 stays adjudication of claims against a defendant that files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, but the case may proceed against its codefendants.

Dillon v. Fibreboard Corp. · filed 1990-12-07

Accordingly, the automatic stay provision, 11 U.S.C. § 362, which stays judicial actions "against the debtor,” prohibits us from adjudicating the plaintiff-appellant's claims against Celotex. ... We hereby order abatement of all proceedings in this appeal as to, and only as to, defendant-appellee The Celotex Corporation, pending further order of this court. We are not enjoined from proceeding with this matter, however, as to Celotex’ remaining code-fendants.

Section 362(a) automatically stays creditors from acting against a debtor’s property while the bankruptcy proceeding is pending.

Clark v. Bank of Bentonville · filed 1992-02-03(a)

In fact, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) (1979) imposes an automatic stay that prohibits creditors from acting against a debtor’s property during the pendency of the bankruptcy proceeding.

Section 362 does not bar a court from granting summary judgment in favor of a debtor because that decision is not an action or proceeding against the debtor.

Bailey v. Dell Pub. Co., Inc. · filed 1992-04-20(a)(1)

That filing, and the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362, have no applicability to, or impact on, this court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Daring because it cannot be construed to be an action or proceeding "against the debtor.”

Section 362(a)(1) stays a creditor’s fraudulent transfer action against third-party transferees when it seeks to recover a claim against the debtor.

In Re Colonial Realty Company · filed 1992-11-20(a)(1)

Upon analysis, a third-party action to recover fraudulently transferred property is properly regarded as undertaken "to recover a claim against the debtor" and subject to the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(a)(1).

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay an appeal in a proceeding initiated by the debtor because that proceeding is not an action against the debtor.

Musso v. New York State Higher Education Services Corp. (In Re Royal Business School, Inc.) · filed 1993-08-04(a)(1)

Since the Debtor initiated the Article 78 proceeding, it does not constitute an “action against the debtor” under § 362(a)(1). Thus, the Appellate Division was not stayed from issuing its decision.

Section 362 stays actions against a corporate debtor in bankruptcy, and the court may dismiss the stayed action against the debtor without prejudice.

Tucker Leasing Capital Corp. v. Marin Medical Management, Inc. · filed 1993-09-30

In light of the fact that all actions against the corporate defendant Marin Medical are subject to the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362, the Court hereby dismisses the action as against the corporate defendant, without prejudice.

Section 362(a) bars filing a lawsuit against a debtor on a claim that arose before the bankruptcy petition.

Hendrix v. Page · filed 1993-10-28(a)

Hendrix filed his Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition on June 5, 1990, and the Pages filed their complaint naming Hendrix as a defendant in the Scott Circuit Court on June 21,1990. There is no question that the filing of the Pages’ complaint violated the Section 362 automatic stay.

Section 362(a)(1) stays an action only if it was against the debtor when commenced; a later change in appellate posture does not bring a debtor-initiated action within the stay.

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

The Sec. 362(a)(1) stay applies to actions that are "against the debtor" at their inception, regardless of the subsequent appellate posture of the case.

Section 362(a)(1) permits a creditor to pursue a nondebtor for payment but bars serving a debtor guarantor in a state court deficiency proceeding as a step toward collecting from the debtor.

McCartney v. Integra National Bank (In Re McCartney) · filed 1994-03-10(a)(1)

The automatic stay does not preclude creditors from pursuing their right to payment from non-debtors. ... The object to be fulfilled by complying with the Deficiency Judgment Act by serving the petition or notice on the Debtor was precisely to take the next step in the Bank’s collection effort against the Debtor. That next step was clearly prohibited by the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362: ... The precise purpose of § 362 was to centralize, in the bankruptcy court as the appropriate forum, all prebankruptcy civil claims against a debtor.

Section 362(a)(1) stays a debtor's appeal from an action brought against the debtor before the bankruptcy petition was filed.

Didio v. Philadelphia Asbestos Corp. · filed 1994-04-11(a)(1)

As Keene's appeal arises from an action brought against Keene before the filing of his bankruptcy petition, we must stay Keene's appeal pending the conclusion of the bankruptcy proceedings.

Section 362 does not stay offensive actions taken by a debtor.

In Re Green · filed 1995-04-13

The automatic stay of § 362 does not stay offensive actions taken by a debtor.

Section 362(a) does not stay an action that is not against a debtor in bankruptcy.

Office of Public Utility Counsel v. Phelps Dodge Refining Corp. · filed 1995-07-12(a)

Because the cause underlying this appeal was not an action against the debtors in bankruptcy, we presume that the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code is inapplicable.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not prohibit unilateral dismissal of claims against a debtor under Rule 41 or dismissal by agreement with judicial approval.

In Re Dow Corning Corp. · filed 1995-09-14

The Court further notes that unilateral dismissal of claims against a debtor under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41, or its equivalent by agreement and with judicial approval, assists rather than interferes with goals of Chapter 11. Such actions do not violate the automatic stay.

Section 362's automatic stay does not bar dismissal of a claim against a debtor when dismissal does not interfere with the bankruptcy estate or bankruptcy case.

Wilson v. Bradlees · filed 1995-11-08

However, the stay does not bar the court from dismissing a claim against a debtor in bankruptcy where such action "does not interfere in any way with the property of the bankrupt estate or the bankruptcy case [and] is not inconsistent with the automatic stay provision." Royal Dynasty, Inc. v. Chin, 37 Mass.App.Ct 171, 171-72, 638 N.E.2d 921, 922 (1994) (citations omitted); see Teel v. American Steel Foundaries, 529 F. Supp. 337, 346 (E.D.Mo. 1981) (automatic stay does not prevent district court from dismissing action against debtor). Accordingly, Bradlees is dismissed from this action on the grounds of federal preemption.

Section 362(a)(1) bars a court from dismissing an action against a debtor after a bankruptcy filing when dismissal requires consideration of issues presented by or related to the underlying case.

Dean v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. Air Line Pilots Association, International · filed 1995-12-19(a)(1)

We conclude that where a decision to dismiss requires the court to first consider other issues presented by or related to the underlying case, dismissal of an action after the defendant has filed for bankruptcy violates the automatic stay.

Section 362(a)(1) prohibits a court from dismissing a pending action against a debtor for want of prosecution while the automatic stay is in effect.

Sanchez v. Hester · filed 1995-12-21(a)(1)

Accordingly, the hearing and consequent order dismissing Sanchez’s case for want of prosecution were a prohibited continuation of proceedings against the debtor.

Section 362 permits a stay of a creditor’s action against a debtor even when the debtor files a post-judgment motion to vacate, because that motion remains part of the creditor’s action.

Westlake Presbyterian Church, Inc. v. Cornforth · filed 1996-12-10(a)(1)

Cornforth next asserts that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to stay the Oklahoma case based on the federal bankruptcy case. Cornforth bases his contention on the fact that 11 U.S.C. § 362 stays attacks by creditors on debtors, not of debtors on creditors. The lawsuit in this case, however, was filed by the Church against Cornforth and the Church’s judgment made it a judgment creditor and Cornforth a judgment debtor. Cornforth’s motion to vacate was a post-judgment motion, but is not a separate action.

Section 362(a)(1) stays a prepetition counterclaim against a debtor absent an order lifting the stay, but does not stay a foreclosure action that is not against the debtor.

Milazzo v. Schwartz · filed 1997-03-11(a)(1)

The filing of a bankruptcy petition creates an automatic stay against the commencement or continuation of all actions against the debtor that were, or could have been, filed against the debtor prior to the bankruptcy filing. 11 U.S.C. § 362. Here, the automatic bankruptcy stay did not prohibit the foreclosure action from proceeding because it was not an “action against the debtor.” The counterclaim for breach of contract, however, was an action against the debtor and, in the absence of a specific order lifting the stay, should not have proceeded. We, therefore, regard the trial court’s ruling insofar as it resolves the counterclaim as a nullity.

Section 362(a)(1) stays actions to recover from a debtor personally, but does not prohibit an action solely against collateral.

In Re Karis · filed 1997-03-20(a)(1)

Given those provisions, however, it is clear that § 362(a)(1) prohibits only those actions which seek to recover from the debtors personally. Accordingly, FSA did not violate that subsection when it executed upon its replevin judgment.

Section 362(a)(1) stays counterclaims against a debtor but does not stay claims the debtor brought against others.

Vasile v. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. · filed 1998-09-14(a)(1)

Accordingly, the counterclaims asserted against the Plaintiff/debtor will be stayed pending final determination of the bankruptcy petition. ... However, the primary claims raised by Vasile are claims asserted by, and not against, the debtor, and are therefore not subject to the stay and can be immediately adjudicated.

Section 362(a) prevents a subcontractor from naming a bankrupt general contractor in a mechanics lien action while the automatic stay is in effect; the subcontractor need not seek relief from the stay to preserve its lien.

Chicago Whirly, Inc. v. Amp Rite Electric Co., Inc. · filed 1999-03-30(a)

We also find that the automatic stay in bankruptcy prevented defendant from naming Cinaco Builders as a party to the mechanics lien action and that the time in which defendant was required to bring suit to enforce a mechanics lien is extended by the Bankruptcy Act. 11 U.S.C § 108(c) (1994). The automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Act prohibits “the commencement or continuation, including the issuance or employment of process, *** of a judicial action against the debtor” once a bankruptcy petition has been filed. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) (1994). While plaintiff claims that defendant could have filed within the 30 days if it asked the bankruptcy court to remove the stay so that it could name Cinaco Builders in the mechanics lien suit, we do not believe that defendant had an obligation to seek such relief.

Section 362(a)(1) stays pending claims against a Chapter 11 debtor unless the bankruptcy court lifts the stay.

Hays v. Bankers Trust Co. of California · filed 1999-04-19(a)(1)

Pursuant to the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1), insofar as this action involves claims against UCLC involving the 1994 loan, and absent an order of the Bankruptcy Court lifting the stay, Plaintiff’s claims against UCLC are stayed.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays a pending appeal in an action originally filed against the debtor, whether the plaintiff or debtor appealed.

Cramer v. Wade · filed 1999-08-13(a)(1)

Although federal courts conflict on the issue, the majority rule appears to be that in a proceeding originally filed against the debtor, any pending appeal, whether by the plaintiff or debtor/defendant, is automatically stayed by virtue of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). ... For the reasons stated by the Ninth Circuit in Ingersoll-Rand, 817 F.2d at 1426, we find the majority rule preferable; we therefore deem Watkins's appeal stayed and decline to consider it. Because neither party has addressed the conflicting case law, however, we limit our ruling to the present case.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not prevent a plaintiff from voluntarily dismissing an action against the debtor.

Slay v. Living Centers East, Inc. · filed 2000-06-23

LCE, however, had already filed for bankruptcy, which raises an interesting question: Does the automatic stay provision set forth at 11 U.S.C. § 362 preclude a plaintiff from voluntarily dismissing an action against the defendant debtor pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)®? ... This court agrees that voluntary dismissals assist rather than interfere with the goals of Chapter 11. Accordingly, this case was properly DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE upon the filing of Slay’s notice of dismissal.

Section 362(a)(1) does not bar dismissal of a debtor defendant from a lawsuit.

Darr v. Altman · filed 2000-05-18(a)(1)

Therefore, we find that Hahne’s subsequent dismissal did not violate the bankruptcy stay and the November 5,1998 judgment is not void, but is the final, appealable judgment in this case.

Section 362 stays actions against a debtor, but does not stay actions brought by a debtor.

In Re Foor · filed 2000-10-12

Initially, the Court notes that the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362 is not applicable to this proceeding. Section 362 halts actions against a debtor, not actions by a debtor.

Section 362 stays continued prosecution of a suit against a bankrupt defendant unless the bankruptcy court permits it.

Brengettsy, Frank M. v. LTV Steel · filed 2001-02-28

At the plaintiff’s request, and without objection by the defendants, we hereby dismiss defendant LTV Steel Company, which has entered bankruptcy and is protected by the automatic stay (11 U.S.C. sec. 362) from the continued prosecution of this suit against it without the permission of the bankruptcy court.

Section 362 automatically stays pending district court suits against the debtor.

In Re Computer Learning Centers, Inc. · filed 2001-12-18

The two district court suits were clearly stayed as to the debtor. [12] 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362(a) permits a district court to dismiss a debtor from a pending action on a plaintiff’s voluntary motion when the dismissal is consistent with the automatic stay.

Thomas v. Acands Inc · filed 2002-04-10(a)

The district courts in the instant cases were similarly entitled to dismiss the debtor on the plaintiffs’ motions as a matter consistent with the terms of § 362(a) and the effective management of their dockets.

Section 362(a) permits a district court to grant a plaintiff’s motion to dismiss a debtor from pending litigation.

Arnold v. Garlock Inc. · filed 2002-04-10(a)

The district courts in the instant cases were similarly entitled to dismiss the debtor on the plaintiffs’ motions as a matter consistent with the terms of § 362(a) and the effective management of their dockets.

Section 362(a) permits a district court to dismiss a debtor defendant on a plaintiff’s voluntary motion when the dismissal is consistent with the automatic stay.

Snow v. AC&S Inc · filed 2002-04-10(a)

The district courts in the instant cases were similarly entitled to dismiss the debtor on the plaintiffs’ motions as a matter consistent with the terms of § 362(a) and the effective management of their dockets.

Section 362(a) permits a district court to grant a plaintiff’s voluntary motion to dismiss a debtor from pending litigation when the dismissal is consistent with the stay.

Burdo v. AC&S Inc · filed 2002-04-10(a)

The district courts in the instant cases were similarly entitled to dismiss the debtor on the plaintiffs’ motions as a matter consistent with the terms of § 362(a) and the effective management of their dockets.

Section 362(a) permits a district court to grant plaintiffs’ motions to dismiss claims against a debtor when the dismissal is consistent with the automatic stay.

Porter v. AC&S Inc · filed 2002-04-10(a)

The district courts in the instant cases were similarly entitled to dismiss the debtor on the plaintiffs’ motions as a matter consistent with the terms of § 362(a) and the effective management of their dockets.

Section 362(a) permits a district court to grant a plaintiff’s motion to dismiss a debtor defendant from pending litigation.

Jackson v. AC&S Inc · filed 2002-04-10(a)

The district courts in the instant cases were similarly entitled to dismiss the debtor on the plaintiffs’ motions as a matter consistent with the terms of § 362(a) and the effective management of their dockets.

Section 362(a) permits a district court to dismiss a debtor from pending litigation on the plaintiff’s motion when doing so is consistent with the automatic stay.

Sterling v. AC&S Inc · filed 2002-04-10(a)

The district courts in the instant cases were similarly entitled to dismiss the debtor on the plaintiffs’ motions as a matter consistent with the terms of § 362(a) and the effective management of their dockets.

Section 362(a) permits a district court to grant a plaintiff’s motion to dismiss a debtor from pending litigation when the dismissal is consistent with the stay.

Kennamer v. Able Supply Company · filed 2002-04-10(a)

The district courts in the instant cases were similarly entitled to dismiss the debtor on the plaintiffs’ motions as a matter consistent with the terms of § 362(a) and the effective management of their dockets.

Section 362(a) permits a district court to dismiss a debtor defendant on the plaintiffs’ motions when the dismissal is consistent with the automatic stay.

Armstrong v. Able Supply Company · filed 2002-04-10(a)

The district courts in the instant cases were similarly entitled to dismiss the debtor on the plaintiffs’ motions as a matter consistent with the terms of § 362(a) and the effective management of their dockets.

Section 362(a) permits a district court to dismiss a debtor from pending litigation on the plaintiffs’ voluntary motions when the dismissal is consistent with the stay.

McDowell v. AC&S Inc · filed 2002-04-10(a)

The district courts in the instant cases were similarly entitled to dismiss the debtor on the plaintiffs’ motions as a matter consistent with the terms of § 362(a) and the effective management of their dockets.

Section 362(a) permits a district court to dismiss a debtor from pending litigation on the plaintiffs’ motions when the dismissal is consistent with the automatic stay.

Sanden v. ACands Inc · filed 2002-04-10(a)

The district courts in the instant cases were similarly entitled to dismiss the debtor on the plaintiffs’ motions as a matter consistent with the terms of § 362(a) and the effective management of their dockets.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay allocation of fault to a bankrupt nonparty when the allocation creates no claim against the debtor or its estate.

Bondex International v. Ott · filed 2002-08-23(a)(1)

The allocation of fault to bankrupt non-parties under the Comparative Fault Act does not result in “liquidated claims” and does not affect the debtors’ property or the bankruptcy estates. Consequently, adding a nonparty defense under the Comparative Fault Act does not constitute an action or proceeding “against the debtor” under Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 362(a) automatically stays an action against a Chapter 11 debtor in possession concerning its prepetition business activity.

Hosley International Trading Corp. v. K Mart Corp. · filed 2002-12-20(a)

K Mart is currently operating its business as a chapter 11 Debtor in Possession pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 1107 and 1108, and thus plaintiff's action against K Mart (with respect to K Mart’s pre-petition business activity) was automatically stayed, as provided in 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

Section 362(a) stays claims against a debtor but does not stay claims brought by the debtor.

Shared Network Users Group, Inc. v. Worldcom Technologies, Inc. · filed 2004-04-19(a)

That section only allows for the stay of claims against a debtor, not claims brought by the debtor. ... While Shared Network correctly reads § 362, WorldCom counters that since its counterclaim is related to Shared Network’s claims, the entire action was properly removed.

Section 362(a)(1) makes dismissal of an action against a debtor after the bankruptcy petition is filed void as a violation of the automatic stay, even if the dismissal favors the debtor.

McGuire v. Champion Fence & Construction, Inc. · filed 2004-11-04(a)(1)

Thus, we conclude, as did the court in Ellis, that the operation of the stay does not depend on the outcome of the proceedings and acts that favor the debtor are still void if they violate the automatic stay. ... Therefore because we conclude that dismissal of the case against defendant was a violation of the automatic stay, we also conclude that the trial court should have granted plaintiff's CRCP. 60(b)(8) motion to set aside the judgment as void.

Section 362(a)(1) permits a creditor to voluntarily dismiss claims against a debtor in bankruptcy but bars an appeal of those claims until relief from the stay is granted.

G.M. Fedorchak & Associates, Inc. v. Chicago Title Land Trust Co. · filed 2005-01-07(a)(1)

This court’s research has found no case holding that such a stay applies to a creditor’s motion to voluntarily dismiss claims against a debtor in bankruptcy. Thus, the stay did not bar the trial court from ruling on Fedorchak’s motion to voluntarily dismiss the remaining counts of its complaint. ... However, the automatic stay barred Fedorchak from appealing any claim against Ground Zero until the bankruptcy court granted relief from the stay.

Section 362 stays pending claims against a defendant who files a bankruptcy petition.

Craig v. Park Financial of Broward County, Inc. · filed 2005-04-26

As a preliminary matter, since Defendant Torres has filed a petition for bankruptcy, the claims against Defendant Torres are due to be stayed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays an appeal in a divorce proceeding brought against the debtor, even when the debtor files the appeal.

Steakley v. Steakley · filed 2006-02-21(a)(1)

Wife’s divorce proceeding against the defendant husband, including husband’s appeal, was automatically stayed under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1).

The automatic stay bars a creditor from pursuing an action against the debtor without court approval.

Sears Petroleum & Transport Corporation v. Burgess Construction Services, Inc. · filed 2006-03-06

Sears appears to have completely overlooked the fact that once the debtor filed for bankruptcy protection, an automatic stay was put in place to protect individual creditors from going after the debtor.

Section 362(a) stays proceedings against the debtor and does not prevent the debtor from suing other parties.

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

The stay is designed to give "breathing room" to the debtor, In re Jamo, 283 F.3d at 398, and has absolutely no effect on the debtors' ability to bring suit against other parties.

Section 362(a)(1) stays prepetition actions against the debtor even when they are based on personal jurisdiction over the debtor.

Capital Source Finance, LLC v. Delco Oil, Inc. · filed 2007-09-17(a)(1)

Defendants argue that this interpretation of section 1334 deprives the automatic stay, provided in 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) of meaning, but the language of section 362(a)(1) casts a much broader net, and automatically stays any action even if its is based on in personam jurisdiction over the ... debtor.

Section 362(a)(1) stays commencement of an action against a debtor after its bankruptcy filing, so a defendant added after filing cannot be a proper party to that action.

NFC ACQUISITION, LLC v. Comerica Bank · filed 2009-08-06(a)(1)

Norwalk Furniture sought bankruptcy protection on October 3, 2008, and NFC amended its complaint to name Norwalk Furniture as a defendant on October 10, 2008. Norwalk Furniture, thus, cannot be a proper party before the court, as its bankruptcy status "operates as a stay, applicable to all entities, of— (1) the commencement or continuation ... of a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the case under this title.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1).

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay a debtor’s defense of a proceeding the debtor originally brought merely because the opposing party later moves to reopen the judgment.

Dieffenbach v. Haworth · filed 2009-12-16(a)(1)

Dieffenbach’s suggestion that a motion to reopen the state court judgment qualifies as an action “against the debtor” confuses which party might be ahead at a particular stage in the litigation with their status at the outset of the proceeding.

Section 362(a) stays actions against a debtor when the debtor files a bankruptcy petition, and those actions cannot proceed without relief from the stay.

Zhu v. UCBH Holdings, Inc. · filed 2010-01-27(a)

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), the filing of the petition operates as a stay as to all actions against UCBH. Therefore, to the extent these actions are consolidated and proceed, they cannot proceed against UCBH unless Plaintiffs obtain relief from the automatic stay.

Section 362(a) automatically stays an action against a defendant that has filed for bankruptcy protection.

Boland v. B. Holland Masonry, Inc. · filed 2010-08-27(a)

As such, plaintiffs’ action against this defendant is automatically stayed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

Section 362(a) does not prevent a plaintiff from voluntarily dismissing its claims against a debtor from an appeal.

Pflugerville Fox Run LP v. Midway Fabrication & Supply · filed 2010-11-05(a)

The appellants seek to voluntarily dismiss their claims against Atrium Aluminum Products in order to dismiss this appeal in its entirety. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1; see also Darr v. Altman, 20 S.W.3d 802, 807 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (collecting cases and holding that dismissal of defendant/debtor does not violate bankruptcy stay).

Section 362(a)(1) does not bar an amended complaint that adds claims against nondebtor defendants without advancing the existing claims against the debtor.

In Re Gronczewski · filed 2011-02-28(a)(1)

For these reasons, I conclude that the Respondents took no action against the Debtor in the State Court Action and did not “continue” a proceeding against the Debtor in violation of § 362(a)(1).

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays judicial action against a Chapter 11 debtor, excluding that debtor from adjudication of a pending motion.

AMUSEMENT INDUSTRY, INC. v. Stern · filed 2011-03-11(a)(1)

FRG LLC has filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition which results in an automatic stay of judicial action against it. ... Accordingly, FRG LLC is not included in the adjudication of this motion.

Section 362(a)(1) stays an appeal in a proceeding originally brought against the debtor, even when the debtor is the appellant.

TW Telecom Holdings Inc. v. Carolina Internet Ltd. · filed 2011-11-15(a)(1)

Accordingly, we hold that § 362(a)(1) prevents us from proceeding with this appeal.

Section 362(a)(1) stays actions against the debtor, but does not bar judgment in an action brought by the debtor.

Fuleihan v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2012-07-05(a)(1)

Contrary to Fuleihan’s contention, the district court did not lack jurisdiction to grant judgment in her action against defendants after she had filed for bankruptcy. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) (a bankruptcy petition stays an “action or proceeding against the debtor” (emphasis added)).

Section 362 stays judicial actions against a bankruptcy debtor upon the debtor’s bankruptcy filing.

Cuervo v. Airport Services, Inc. · filed 2013-11-22

Under 11 U.S.C. § 362, an application for bankruptcy operates to stay a judicial action against the bankruptcy debtor. Accordingly, this case is stayed as to Sabry and ASI pending the resolution of their respective bankruptcy cases.

Section 362(a)(1) bars filing claims against a debtor while the automatic stay applies unless the bankruptcy court grants relief from the stay, even if the confirmation order’s status is disputed.

Behrmann v. National Heritage Foundation, Inc. (In re National Heritage Foundation, Inc.) · filed 2014-05-05(a)(1)

Even if it had been reasonable for appellants to believe that the Fourth Circuit had somehow vacated the entire Confirmation Order, including the Discharge Provision, the bankruptcy court properly reasoned that the automatic stay imposed under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) would still have been applicable and appellants would not have been entitled to file claims against NHF without seeking permission to lift the stay.

Section 362(a) stays a creditor’s third-party suit against a chapter 7 debtor on a prepetition claim, even when the suit is filed in a related adversary proceeding before the same bankruptcy court.

In re Adkins · filed 2014-07-23(a)

The issue, then, is whether the holding of Campbell, which arose in connection with a claim made in a proof of claim, can be extended to a third party action filed in an adversary pending in a different bankruptcy case, but before the same bankruptcy court. This would seem, at least to this Court, to be stayed by the clear language of § 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. ... The Court concludes that McLo-ba violated the stay.

Section 362(a)(1) stays an appeal continuing a prebankruptcy action against the debtor even when the debtor is the appellant.

Boardman v. Brenninkmeijer · filed 2014-09-10(a)(1)

The applicability of the stay is determined by whether the commencement or continuation of a judicial action or proceeding is against the debtor, or to recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the bankruptcy case. This would include the continuation by appeal of the action in this case brought by Brenninkmeijer against Boardman, who became the debtor after filing bankruptcy during the pendency of the appeal.

Section 362(a)(1) stays a pending judicial proceeding against a Chapter 7 debtor and prevents entry of judgment against that debtor while the stay applies.

Bank of Commerce v. Fyre Lake Ventures, LLC · filed 2015-03-13(a)(1)

The Court stayed proceedings as to Minton. Dec. 2, 2014 Minute Entry. Thus, judgment as to Minton is not appropriate at this time.

Section 362(a)(1) bars a court from dismissing claims against a debtor while the automatic stay is in effect, even if the dismissal favors the debtor.

Gaddy v. SE Property Holdings, LLC · filed 2016-05-27(a)(1)

The question is whether the trial court’s dismissal of SEPH’s claims against Long violated the bankruptcy stay. We hold that it does. The automatic stay prohibits the commencement or continuation of a judicial action or proceeding against the debtor or to recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the bankruptcy case. Even though the trial court’s order dismissing SEPH’s claims against Long is in Long’s favor, it is nonetheless a “continuation” of the judicial proceeding.

Section 362(a)(1) does not bar a plaintiff from voluntarily dismissing an action against the debtor under Rule 41 when dismissal imposes no additional cost or risk on the debtor or creditors.

Sawyer v. Jackson · filed 2016-12-06(a)(1)

Because “voluntary dismissals assist rather than interfere with the goals of Chapter 11,” this action can be dismissed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Fed. R. Civ. P. Slay, 249 B.R. at 807.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not apply to an action brought by the bankruptcy debtor rather than against it.

Young Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. Dustin Construction, Inc. · filed 2016-12-28

Upon consideration of 11 U.S.C. § 362 and the relevant case law, we agree with the appellant’s argument that the automatic stay does not apply because this case does not involve an action against the bankruptcy debtor.

Section 362(a)(1) stays an action to recover a claim against a debtor when the action depends on or is based upon that claim.

Lee v. McCardle (In re Peeples) · filed 2017-03-30(a)(1)

Simply put, if the action is dependent on (or based upon) a claim against the debtor, the action falls within the scope of Section 362(a)(1).

Section 362(a) stays litigation against a defendant who files for bankruptcy, but permits the court to dismiss claims against that defendant after the petition is filed.

Quiñones-Irizarry v. Corporación del Fondo del Seguro del Estado · filed 2017-06-29(a)

Accordingly, this litigation is stayed as to Carrión pursuant to the automatic stay provision set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 362 ("section 362”). ... This Court may, nevertheless, dismiss the ADA and Law 40 causes of action against Carrión because a post-petition dismissal of claims against a defendant in bankruptcy does not violate the automatic stay, ... Although the First Circuit Court of Appeals has not addressed this issue, the weight of authority from sister circuits indicates that such a dismissal is permitted.

The automatic stay bars a lessor from pursuing a debtor personally on an assumed lease until discharge or stay relief, even when the lease liability survives discharge.

In re Abdemur · filed 2018-06-12(a)

However, while the discharge does not affect Debtor's in personam liability under the Lease, Toyota may not proceed against the Debtor until after the Debtor has received his discharge, or Toyota seeks stay relief against the Debtor.

Section 362 automatically stays a pending civil action against a defendant who has filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition.

Martin v. Finley · filed 2018-10-12

This action is subject to an automatic bankruptcy stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 with respect to a fourth individual, Defendant Michael Moore, M.D. ("Moore"), due to his Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. (Docs. 78, 79, 82). Thus, Martin's case against Moore is not the subject of this Opinion and accompanying Order.

Section 362(a)(1) stays the addition of a new plaintiff to assert claims against defendants in Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

West v. ABC Oil Company Inc · filed 2019-06-03(a)(1)

Allowing Searcy to allege claims against those companies would violate the automatic stay of § 362.

Section 362(a)(1) stays a pending action against a debtor upon the debtor’s bankruptcy filing.

People's United Equipment Finance Corp. v. TAK, LLC · filed 2019-07-01(a)(1)

Under 11 U.S.C. § 362, this action is stayed as to TAK and Bricor.

Section 362(a) temporarily bars a prepetition damages claim against a debtor after the debtor files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

M.L. Johnson Family Properties, LLC v. Jewell · filed 2019-08-14(a)

Because Premier Elkhorn is protected by the automatic stay, Johnson LLC may not, at least for now, bring its claim for damages against the coal company.