11 U.S.C. § 362

Section 362 automatically stays a pending civil action against a defendant that files a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition.

Interim Healthcare Inc. v. Interim Healthcare of Southeast Louisiana, Inc. · filed 2019-12-17(a)(1)

As an initial matter, given IHSL’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, this action is automatically stayed as to IHSL, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay an adversary proceeding brought by the debtor or the debtor’s appeal from it.

Gregory B Myers - Adversary Proceeding · filed 2020-02-13(a)(1)

Myers brought the adversary proceeding that gave rise to this appeal, and thus, the automatic stay does not apply.

Section 362 automatically stays a pending counterclaim against an entity that files for bankruptcy.

Provide Commerce, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company · filed 2020-06-02(a)(1)

Further, Provide’s bankruptcy filing automatically stayed Sentry’s Counterclaim against the entity.

Section 362(a)(1) stays an action against a defendant that has filed a bankruptcy petition.

SWEET CHARLIE'S FRANCHISING, LLC v. SWEET MOO'S ROLLED ICE CREAM, LLC · filed 2020-06-19(a)(1)

However, in view of the bankruptcy petition, this case will be stayed as to Defendant Sweet Moo’s.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays a prepetition lawsuit against a debtor when the debtor files for bankruptcy.

Carlson v. Educational Credit Management Corporation · filed 2020-10-28(a)(1)

Thus, Allied’s bankruptcy filing triggers an automatic stay of Plaintiff’s suit against it under the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 362(a)(1) prevents continuation of a state court action against the debtor while the automatic stay is in effect.

Property Ventures, LLC · filed 2020-12-11(a)(1)

They did not, and could not, decide whether it was a valid and binding obligation of Debtor because the automatic stay prevented the continuation of the action against Debtor. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1).

Section 362(a)(1) does not bar voluntary dismissal of a debtor from a lawsuit, including on appeal, while the automatic stay remains in effect.

Mirada Energy, LLC, Mirada Wild Basin Holding Company, LLC and Mirada Energy Fund I, LLC v. Oasis Petroleum Inc., Oasis · filed 2020-12-17(a)(1)

That is, regardless of the status of the stay, dismissal of a debtor from a lawsuit does not violate the stay. Thuesen and Darr involved voluntary dismissals at the trial level. The same conclusion logically applies to voluntary dismissals at the appellate level.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays an appeal by a debtor defendant when the underlying action was brought against the debtor.

NATIONAL MEDICAL IMAGING, LLC v. LYON FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., etc. · filed 2021-01-13(a)(1)

When the debtor is a defendant in a legal action, as Appellants are here, the debtor-defendant’s appeal of an adverse order or judgment in that legal action, as occurred here, is plainly a “continuation” of the legal action against the debtor.

Section 362(a) stays a pending civil action against a debtor upon its bankruptcy petition.

Woodley v. Gulfport Energy Corporation · filed 2021-02-08(a)

This matter is hereby stayed as to Gulfport in light of its bankruptcy petition. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

Section 362(a)(1) does not bar a debtor from voluntarily providing evidence for use in litigation against other defendants.

WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC. v. EASTERN MUSHROOM MARKETING COOPERATIVE, INC. · filed 2021-05-12(a)(1)

But the automatic stay of claims against OMF does not have any impact on OMF’s voluntary actions. Even before the stay was lifted as to Plaintiffs’ claims against OMF, nothing about the automatic stay would have precluded this Court from considering evidence voluntarily produced by OMF’s President in support of Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment.

Section 362(a)(1) stays actions against a debtor; a debtor must establish that its own appeal falls within that category for the stay to halt the appeal.

Jc Aviation Investements, Llc, V. Htp, Inc. · filed 2021-11-08(a)(1)

And HTP fails to explain how its appeal from a contempt order qualifies as a judicial, administrative, or other action against it for purposes of the automatic stay. HTP has not established that the bankruptcy proceedings stay resolution of its appeal.

Section 362(a)(1), as applied through PROMESA, stays an effort to enforce a settlement against the debtor Commonwealth when it is the party obligated to pay.

Diaz-Morales v. Cruz-Velez · filed 2022-04-12(a)(1)

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff sought to enforce the Commonwealth to pay Plaintiff according to the terms of the settlement agreement during the status conference on September 30, 2021, because the Commonwealth is the only party that has expressly committed to pay the agreed-upon amount. Therefore, the Court holds that the case is STAYED pursuant to PROMESA’s automatic stay provision.

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

Deen v. Kreditor CA4/3 · filed 2022-08-11(a)(1)

That statute only imposes a stay of cases filed against the bankruptcy debtor. It has no effect on cases such as this one, where the debtor is the plaintiff.

Section 362 stays claims against a bankruptcy debtor from proceeding but does not prevent dismissal of those claims.

Thomasson v. Stern · filed 2022-08-29

Mrs. Thomasson is correct that claims against Mr. Thomasson cannot proceed while he is in bankruptcy proceedings; however, nothing in the bankruptcy code prevents a party from dismissing claims against a defendant engaged in bankruptcy proceedings. See 11 U.S.C. § 362. Therefore, this Court is not barred from dismissing Mr. Stern’s claim against Mr. Thomasson.

Section 362 stays a pending civil action against a defendant during its bankruptcy proceedings.

Abbott v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · filed 2022-10-14

In light of this notice and the resulting automatic stay, I will stay this action as to Vital Pharmaceuticals.

Section 362 automatically stays a civil action against a bankruptcy debtor until the bankruptcy proceedings end or the stay is lifted.

Kelly 225090 v. Corizon of Michigan · filed 2023-06-12(c)

In accordance with 11 U.S.C. § 362, this civil action against Corizon is automatically stayed as to the debtor until the bankruptcy proceedings in question are terminated or the stay is lifted. 11 U.S.C. § 362(c). The Court will not address Plaintiff’s claims against Corizon on screening.

Section 362(a)(1) stays an action in which the bankruptcy debtor is a named defendant, including a foreclosure action naming the debtor as a subordinate judgment creditor.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Newhouse · filed 2023-07-28(a)(1)

The plain language of 11 USC § 362 (a) (1) encompasses actions in which the debtor is a named defendant, as Hudson was in the first foreclosure action.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not prevent a third-party plaintiff from voluntarily dismissing its complaint against the debtor without prejudice.

Medical Inflatable Exhibits, Inc. v. KentuckyOne Health, Inc. · filed 2023-08-01

And dismissal here does not violate the purpose of the automatic bankruptcy stay.

Section 362(a)(1) stays claims against a defendant that is in bankruptcy.

Sims-Lewis v. Abello · filed 2023-08-29(a)(1)

Because Corizon, the contract provider of medical services to the Maryland correctional system, is in bankruptcy, the claims against Corizon will be stayed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1).

Section 362(a)(1) stays commencement of a foreclosure action against a debtor named as a defendant even if the debtor transferred the property before filing for bankruptcy.

Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. DeMatteis · filed 2023-10-18(a)(1)

We similarly hold that, by its plain language, section 362(a)(1) prohibits commencing an action against the debtor while the stay is in effect, regardless of why the debtor would be named as a defendant in the action.

Section 362(a)(1) stays the commencement of a prepetition action against a debtor when the debtor files for bankruptcy.

LIFETOUCH NATIONAL SCHOOL STUDIOS v. OKLAHOMA SCHOOL PICTURES · filed 2023-11-13(a)(1)

The defendants were correct in pointing out that Lifetouch did not join Tulsa School Pictures as a defendant when it filed this action the month after Tulsa School Pictures filed for bankruptcy. It was prohibited from doing so by the Federal Bankruptcy Code. See 11 U.S.C. § 362 (filing of Tulsa School Pictures' petition for bankruptcy stayed "(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, or to recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title. . . .").

Section 362(a)(1) stays actions against a debtor, but does not stay an action the debtor pursues.

Florczyk v. Scottsdale Insurance Company · filed 2024-03-07(a)(1)

Pursuant to Section 362(a), filing a joint bankruptcy petition under Chapter 13 operates as an automatic stay of an action against the party seeking bankruptcy protection. ... “The automatic stay only stays actions against a debtor, not those pursued by the debtor.”

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

Axos Bank v. 64-03 Realty LLC · filed 2024-04-03(a)

But because 64-03 Realty has since filed for bankruptcy, see In re 64-03 Realty LLC, No. 24-BK-40820 (NHL) (Bankr. E.D.N.Y.), proceedings against that defendant are automatically stayed pending the conclusion of the bankruptcy proceedings.

Section 362(a) does not prevent a plaintiff from voluntarily dismissing a bankrupt defendant from a lawsuit.

Jones v. The Whirlpool Corporation · filed 2024-04-30(a)

In addition, this Court has held that the plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of a bankrupt defendant does not violate the automatic stay provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). ... Accordingly, because the record reveals no prejudice that will be incurred to any party by so doing, Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice, (Doc. 58), is GRANTED.

Section 362(a)(1) stays an adversary proceeding seeking damages and declaratory relief against a Chapter 15 debtor based on the debtor’s prebankruptcy conduct.

In re: Point Investments, Ltd. · filed 2024-09-23(a)(1)

The adversary proceeding sought monetary damages and declaratory relief against the Debtor based on the Debtor’s pre- bankruptcy conduct. The adversary proceeding therefore fit within the prohibitions set forth in § 362(a)(1).

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays a pending action against a debtor when the debtor files a bankruptcy petition.

C.A.L. Produce Sales Corp v. CFG Produce, Inc. · filed 2025-04-01(a)(1)

Although Plaintiff does not address the issue, the proceedings against Defendant Jackson in this action are stayed under 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays an action against a debtor that has filed a Chapter 11 petition.

Rodriguez v. Lulav Properties, LLC · filed 2025-07-25(a)(1)

In view of this notice, this action is hereby STAYED as to Defendant Lulav Properties LLC, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362, pending the outcome of the bankruptcy petition.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays a pending action against a Chapter 11 debtor upon the filing of its bankruptcy petition.

MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. v. Baltic Auto Shipping, Inc. · filed 2025-08-04(a)(1)

In view of this notice, this action is hereby STAYED as to MTL, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362, pending the outcome of the bankruptcy petition.

Section 362(a)(1) bars claims against a Chapter 7 debtor filed after the bankruptcy petition without relief from the automatic stay.

Gonzalez v. Behrendt · filed 2025-09-26(a)(1)

This adversary proceeding was filed on April 7, 2023 by Gonzalez without obtaining relief from the automatic stay. The claims asserted against RedCorp were barred by the automatic stay at the time of filing.

Section 362(a) stays a pending action against a defendant who files for bankruptcy, permitting administrative closure as to that defendant.

G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Elevation Cigars & Lounge LLC · filed 2025-11-14(a)

On September 12, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notification that Robert Gooden filed for bankruptcy protection on May 15, 2025. ... Accordingly, this action will be administratively closed as to Defendant Robert Gooden.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not prevent dismissal with prejudice of claims against a debtor when the dismissal imposes no costs on the debtor and does not affect other creditors.

Relyance Bank, N.A. v. Steve Pharr and Simmons Bank · filed 2026-03-19

Nor did the automatic stay from bankruptcy affect Relyance’s ability to dismiss with prejudice the claims against Caldwell, the debtor. ... Here, Relyance chose to dismiss, by operation of law, its tort claims against Caldwell. This dismissal neither imposes costs on Caldwell nor implicates Caldwell’s other creditors. Thus, it does not prevent finality.

Section 362 automatically stays a tort action against a person who files a bankruptcy petition.

Anderson v. Rabb · filed 1986-02-25

The filing of a petition in bankruptcy operates as an automatic stay of a tort action against the petitioner in bankruptcy.

Section 362(a)'s automatic stay does not apply to actions against the debtor brought in the bankruptcy court where the debtor’s case is pending.

J.T. Moran Financial Corp. v. American Consolidated Financial Corp. (In Re J.T. Moran Financial Corp.) · filed 1991-02-21(a)

The defendants could have brought a separate action in this court for damages and for cancellation of the notes based on alleged fraud because the automatic stay does not apply to actions against the debtor brought in the bankruptcy court where the debtor’s case is pending.

Section 362(a)(1) prohibits commencing a suit against a debtor after a bankruptcy petition is filed, whether or not the complaint is served.

Greenblatt v. Richard Potasky Jeweler, Inc. (In Re Richard Potasky Jeweler, Inc.) · filed 1998-03-31(a)(1)

All that the Code requires for a violation of the automatic stay is the commencement of a suit against the debtor. ... Whether a copy of the complaint is served upon the debtor is immaterial.

Section 362(a) stays judicial claims against a debtor who has filed for bankruptcy until the automatic stay is lifted.

U.S Bank National Association v. Bolton · filed 2021-03-10(a)

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that, because Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Charles David Bolton and Karen E. Bolton are subject to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)’s automatic stay protections and, in an exercise of the Court’s sound discretion, the case should be stayed, subject to this stay being lifted upon the motion of any party once the 11 U.S.C. § 362 automatic stay is lifted – either by conclusion of the bankruptcy or on order from the bankruptcy court granting relief from the automatic stay – and all pending, unexpired deadlines are terminated.

Section 362’s automatic stay prevents a plaintiff from proceeding with a civil claim against a defendant that has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Merkley v. Idaho Department of Corrections · filed 2023-12-21

However, on February 13, 2023, Corizon filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, under Case No. 2390086-CML. The automatic bankruptcy stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 in that action prevents Plaintiff from proceeding.

Section 362(a)(1) stays actions against the debtor but does not affect an action against a nondebtor.

LeNeve v. via South Florida, LLC · filed 2005-07-27(a)(1)

Finally, we reject LeNeve's claim that the arbitration was void because Indiantown Realty Partnership failed to obtain relief from the automatic stay provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). The stay had no effect on the proceedings in this case. The action against LeNeve was not an action "against the debtor" within the meaning of the statute.

Section 362(a)(1) stays an effort to recover a claim against a debtor, including a motion to enforce a settlement that seeks payment directly from the debtor.

Colon-Torres v. Fernandez · filed 2021-05-10(a)(1)

Instead, in that motion, Colón seeks "to recover a claim against the debtor" directly. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). Thus, ... the automatic stay incorporated in 48 U.S.C. § 2161 should have applied.

Section 362(a)(1) stays actions against the debtor.

Haag v. United States · filed 2007-04-03(a)(1)

On its face, the automatic stay provided by section 362(a)(1) applies only to actions "against the debtor." The suit brought by the government in 2002 against Robert Haag could qualify, but the district court's final judgment in that matter was not appealed; we have before us only an appeal by the Haags of a suit they themselves brought, not a suit "against the debtor."

Section 362(a)(1) stays collection against a debtor even when the property that might satisfy the judgment is outside the bankruptcy estate.

In Re: Advanced Elec · filed 2008-06-30(a)(1)

The Trustee could not have executed against the shares due to the § 362(a)(1) automatic stay.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays actions against a debtor, including execution against shares, during bankruptcy.

Doran v. Courtright · filed 2008-06-30(a)(1)

In light of our Borman opinion, the District Court erred when it concluded that the Trustee could have proceeded against the shares upon the termination of the appeal. The Trustee could not have executed against the shares due to the § 362(a)(1) automatic stay.

Section 362(a)(1) stays a third-party action against a debtor based on prepetition conduct, even when filed in another bankruptcy case before the same bankruptcy court.

In re Adkins · filed 2014-09-08(a)(1)

The Court concludes that McLoba violated the stay. The filing of the third party action against Adkins is a basic stay violation under § 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not bar dismissal of a debtor defendant without prejudice.

Helena Agri-Enterprises, LLC v. Grand Oak Farms · filed 2023-11-15

To begin, the Court agrees with Helena that it could dismiss Tom Woodard without violating the automatic stay.

Section 362(h) does not authorize money damages against governmental units for violations of the automatic stay.

In Re James C. Pearson, Ida J. Pearson, Debtors. James C. Pearson, Ida J. Pearson v. United States · filed 1990-10-30(h)

However, they also noted that the Bankruptcy Code provision permitting damages awards for violation of the automatic stay, section 362(h), does not include any of the three magic words of section 106(c), and therefore does not apply to governmental units. Hoffman, 109 S.Ct. at 2826 n. 4 (Marshall, J., joined by Brennan, Blackmun & Stevens, JJ., dissenting). Although a footnote in a dissent is not exactly a holding, we have no reason to doubt that one or more of the Hoffman dissenters would adhere to this rationale. It therefore appears that a majority of the Supreme Court would hold that governmental units are immune to damages actions arising from violations of the automatic stay. Reading the tea leaves, we so hold.

Section 362(h), read with § 362(a), permits monetary relief against the federal government for violating the automatic stay because § 362(a) supplies the trigger word required by § 106(c).

Price v. United States (In Re Price) · filed 1991-04-01(h)

Accordingly, the Court finds that the trigger word “entities” included in § 362(a) is sufficient to permit the imposition of monetary liability upon the government pursuant to § 362(h) for violations of the automatic stay.

Section 362(h) does not allow a money damages award against a state protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity for violating the automatic stay.

In Re Howard Carl Gustafson, Jr., Debtor. California State University, Fresno v. Howard Carl Gustafson, Jr. · filed 1991-05-28(h)

The single issue before this court is whether a state is immune from suit for money damages, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(h), for violating the Automatic Stay Provision of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). ... We find the state was immune from suit for money damages under the Eleventh Amendment for violating the automatic stay.

Section 362(h) permits monetary damages against the United States for a willful violation of the automatic stay despite a sovereign immunity defense.

In Re Everett · filed 1991-06-07(h)

Based on the foregoing, it is this court’s opinion that sovereign immunity does not protect the United States from the assessment of monetary damages under § 362(h) for the government’s willful violation of the § 362(a) stay.

Section 362(h) does not permit monetary damages against state governmental bodies or their subdivisions when Eleventh Amendment immunity bars the award.

Geiger v. Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation · filed 1992-03-04(h)

However, it appears that claims for such damages could not be granted to the Plaintiff on other grounds. Firstly, we note that, in Hoffman v. Connecticut Dep’t. of Income Maintenance, 492 U.S. 96, 109 S.Ct. 2818, 106 L.Ed.2d 76 (1989), the Court appears to foreclose any imposition of monetary penalties against state governmental bodies or their subdivisions under 11 U.S.C. § 362(h) in light of the Eleventh Amendment.

Section 362(h) permits punitive damages against the United States for an automatic-stay violation in appropriate circumstances.

United States v. Lile (In Re Lile) · filed 1993-06-11(h)

Punitive damages may be awarded against the United States for violations of an automatic stay. This court has concluded that 11 U.S.C. § 106(a) waives the government’s sovereign immunity. 11 U.S.C. § 362(h) states that punitive damages may be recovered in appropriate circumstances.

Section 362(h) permits recovery for a stay violation by a governmental unit because it does not require the wrongdoer to be a person.

Indiana Department of Revenue v. Williams · filed 2003-11-05(h)

There is no requirement in 11 U.S.C. § 362(h) that the wrongdoer be a “person.” That section is general enough to apply to governmental units as well as natural persons or corporations.

Section 362(b)(4) does not stay state bar disciplinary proceedings because an attorney files for bankruptcy.

Matter of Wade · filed 1991-07-03(b)(4)

A lawyer may not discharge his ethical and professional responsibilities in the bankruptcy court. There was, and is, no reason to stay respondent’s disciplinary matter because of his bankruptcy petition.

Section 362(b)(4) exempts attorney disciplinary proceedings from the automatic stay as an exercise of governmental police and regulatory power.

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Ashworth · filed 2004-06-09(b)(4)

We reject the respondent’s argument that the automatic stay provided for by 11 U.S.C. 362(a) applies to these proceedings. ... This provision has been interpreted uniformly to exempt disciplinary proceedings from the automatic stay of § 362(a).

Section 362 stays a state probation revocation based solely on failure to pay dischargeable restitution during a Chapter 13 case, despite the exception for criminal proceedings; a revocation judgment entered in violation of the stay is void.

In Re Hucke · filed 1991-07-11(a)(6), (b)(1)

The state also argues that the probation revocation hearing was a criminal proceeding excepted from the automatic stay. That argument is also unavailing. In Davenport, the Court acknowledges that the automatic stay is not a bar to prosecution of alleged criminal offenses. However, the stay "preclude[s] probation officials from enforcing restitution orders while a debtor seeks relief under Chapter 13." Davenport, 110 S.Ct. at 2132. If the state court could simply jail a debtor who seeks to discharge a restitution obligation, Davenport would be, in Judge Hess' word, emasculated. Defendant cites the possible chilling effect on future probation sentences if plaintiff is ordered released from jail. That concern is insignificant. After Davenport and this case, Congress amended the bankruptcy laws to except criminal restitution from discharge under Chapter 13. See Pub.L. 101-581, 104 Stat. 2865 (Nov. 15, 1990) (adding 11 U.S.C. § 1328(a)(3)). Applying Davenport, the state violated the automatic stay, and the judgment revoking probation is void.

Section 362 bars a state from revoking probation solely to enforce a restitution debt while the debtor seeks Chapter 13 relief; the criminal proceeding exception does not permit that enforcement.

Hucke v. Oregon ex rel. Division of Corrections, Department of Human Resources · filed 1991-07-11(a)(6), (b)(1)

The state also argues that the probation revocation hearing was a criminal proceeding excepted from the automatic stay. That argument is also unavailing. ... Applying Davenport, the state violated the automatic stay, and the judgment revoking probation is void.

Section 362’s automatic stay may cover a postpetition probation hearing whose sole objective is to collect restitution.

In Re Barboza · filed 1997-07-31(a)

Thus, if the sole objective of a post-petition probation hearing is to collect restitution, then that proceeding may be a violation of the automatic stay.

Section 362(a) bars collection of prepetition criminal fines or restitution while the debtor seeks Chapter 13 relief.

Walters v. Sherwood Municipal Court (In Re Walters) · filed 1998-04-06(a)

Section 362(a) precludes enforcement of restitution orders while a debtor seeks relief under Chapter 13. Thus, a governmental entity is in violation of the automatic stay in bankruptcy if it acts upon the debtor’s failure to pay the fines or restitution.

Section 362(a)(6) stays probation revocation proceedings used to collect criminal restitution from a debtor.

Rainwater v. Alabama (In Re Rainwater) · filed 1999-04-16(a)(6)

The filing of a Delinquency Report, a Delinquency Hearing, disregard for and knowledge of the bankruptcy petition, revocation of probation as an enforcement of a restitution order, and counseling with the debtor on ways to be released from incarceration by agreeing to make restitution, appear to be an attempt by the State to collect, assess [or reassess], or recover a claim. Such actions, even under the guise of a continuing criminal proceeding, are in violation of the stay as determined by 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(6).

Section 362(b)(1) exempts criminal restitution hearings from the automatic stay and permits a creditor to assist the state in enforcing a criminal judgment even when the creditor’s primary motivation is collecting the debt.

Walker v. Gwynn · filed 2005-12-01(b)(1)

The Bankruptcy Code excepts criminal proceedings from the automatic stay imposed when a debtor files for bankruptcy. 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(1). A restitution hearing in a criminal proceeding is covered under this exception. See Bryan v. Rainwater, 254 B.R. 273, 278 (N.D. Ala. 2000). The enforcement of a criminal judgment against a debtor in a restitution hearing does not violate the automatic stay, and a creditor does not violate the automatic stay by assisting the state in enforcing the criminal judgment, even though the creditor’s primary motivation is to collect on the debt. See In re Kavoosi, 55 B.R. 120, 122-23 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1985).

Section 362(a)’s automatic stay does not prevent the government from collecting criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act.

Partida v. United States Department of Justice · filed 2017-07-07(a)

The BAP correctly determined in this case that the automatic stay must yield to the government’s collection efforts under the MVRA.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not prevent enforcement of a criminal restitution lien against property in which the person fined held an interest when the lien arose, even after transfer to a debtor.

Chrystyna Hankewycz Sinclair · filed 2026-01-14(a)

In contrast, where a restitution-debtor holds a right to the property, or where a valid lien arose when the person fined held an interest in the property, the MVRA overrides Federal law, including the automatic stay.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not bar opening a probate estate after a bankruptcy filing when the probate estate administers exempt and postpetition assets.

In Re Gridley · filed 1991-09-17

Based on this rationale, there is no violation of the automatic stay as a result of the opening of a probate estate.

Section 362 requires a debtor in bankruptcy to obtain bankruptcy court approval before redeeming preferred stock.

In Re Bicoastal Corp. · filed 1991-11-20

We agree with Mesa that Bicoastal, as a debtor in bankruptcy, could not redeem the junior preferred without the approval of the Bankruptcy Court. 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362 does not stay actions by a separate, nondebtor corporation’s board merely because they reduce the value of stock held by a debtor’s estate.

Park West Real Estate Corp. v. Calvert (In Re Calvert) · filed 1991-12-12(a)(3)

Accordingly, this Court concludes that the automatic stay does not apply to actions of the board of the corporation in determining to exchange debt for equity with another shareholder, thereby giving that shareholder a majority interest in the corporation.

Section 362(a)(3) does not stay shareholders from exercising corporate governance rights to elect a debtor’s board of directors.

Official Bondholders Committee v. Chase Manhatten Bank (In Re Marvel Entertainment Group, Inc.) · filed 1997-05-14(a)(3)

It follows from these principles that the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code are not implicated by the exercise of shareholders’ corporate governance rights.

Section 362(a)(3)-(4) bars a secured creditor from voting a debtor’s pledged shares to take control of corporations or enforce a lien while the shares remain property of the debtor’s estate, unless the creditor first obtains relief from the stay.

In Re Country Estates Nursing Home, Inc. · filed 2001-09-28(a)(3)-(4)

When Commonwealth Communities Development Co., Inc. exercised the right to vote the pledged stock, it did so at a time when the automatic stay was in effect in Platt’s Chapter 11 case. The exercise of the voting rights was thus both “an act ... to exercise control over property of the estate;” and an “act to ... enforce ... [a] ... lien against property of the estate.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3)-(4). There can be no doubt that by voting the pledged shares Commonwealth Communities Development Co., Inc. was attempting to wrest control of the Nursing Homes from Platt, as it voted to remove him as an officer and director. Also, there can be no doubt that it intended to enforce its lien for the purpose of collecting a debt. In doing so, it violated the automatic stay in Platt’s case, and its actions were void.

Section 362(a)(3) stays a declaratory judgment action concerning a nondebtor when the action would affect the debtor’s interest in shared insurance policies that are estate property.

Harbison-Walker Refractories Co. v. Ace Property & Casualty Insurance (In Re Global Industrial Technologies, Inc.) · filed 2004-01-15(a)(3)

The test includes examination of whether the action in question would affect estate property and we find that it will. It is therefore subject to the automatic stay created by § 362(a)(3).

Section 362(a)(3) stays a proceeding that may adversely affect estate property, including the estate’s potential claims, even when the debtor is not named as a party.

Mason v. Costello (In re Klarchek) · filed 2014-04-10(a)(3)

As in Jefferson County, given the potential adverse impact on property of the estate of the action, the action must be stayed pursuant to section 362(a)(3).

Section 362(a)(3) does not stay a damages action that would neither change control of estate property nor divest the estate of possession.

Shaffer v. Health Acquisition Company LLC · filed 2019-04-03(a)(3)

Further, this action is not an action “to obtain possession of property of the estate or of property from the estate or to exercise control over property of the estate” of any of the HMC Hospitals. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3). If successful, the action would, at most, find Defendants liable for monetary damages; it would not change control of the debtors’ property or divest the various estates of possession of the property.

Section 362(a)(3) stays adjudication of nondebtor claims when those claims are intertwined with claims of the estate and their resolution would affect estate property.

Patrick L. McConathy and Patricia Chapman McConathy · filed 2021-06-11(a)(3)

Section 362(a)(3)'s prohibition of acts to exercise control over property of the estate applies in this instance to prevent the adjudication of the claims asserted by the non-debtor parties that are hopelessly intertwined with the claims of the estate.

Section 362 stays a creditor action that seeks control over estate property or pursues nonabandoned derivative claims belonging to the estate, even when the action names third parties.

Chamberlin v. Goldberg · filed 2025-02-19(a)(3)

In its August 5, 2024 order, ECF 4-4, the bankruptcy court correctly concluded that the Appellants’ complaint violates the automatic stay, 11 U.S.C. § 362, because (1) it improperly seeks to exercise control over property of the estate, ECF 4-2 at 7, 9– 10, (2) the Appellee has not abandoned certain claims against defendants named in the class action, so it would be a violation of the automatic stay for the Appellant to pursue them, ECF 4-2 at 10, (3) the class action “has interfered with and jeopardized the Trustee's work and the administration of this . . . case by attempting to exercise control over the recovery of the BFG [l]oan proceeds,” ECF 4-2 at 10, and (4) “the determination of the claims in the [Appellants’ complaint] will impact the administration of this bankruptcy, whether through collateral estoppel, indemnification, or otherwise,” ECF 4-2 at 12.

Section 362(a) bars denial of a liquor-license renewal for unpaid taxes but does not excuse a bankruptcy trustee from filing the renewal application required to preserve the license.

Braunstein v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission (In Re Amasya) · filed 1999-05-27(a)

This Court concludes that there is neither authority nor persuasive argument to eliminate the requirement for a renewal application to preserve the right to automatic renewal, even though disapproval of a renewal application on grounds of nonpayment of taxes is proscribed by § 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 362’s automatic stay limits a state’s ability to condition renewal of an estate liquor license on payment of prepetition taxes.

Gillson v. Town of Middletown (In re Gillson) · filed 1991-12-30

Second, it ignores the significance of 11 U.S.C. §§ 362 and 541, which form the basis for the limitation on the Division of Taxation’s authority to condition the transfer or renewal of such licenses.

Sections 362(a)(3) and (a)(4) protect a Chapter 13 debtor’s post-confirmation earnings needed to fund the plan from collection of post-petition claims, but do not protect earnings beyond that amount.

In Re Ziegler · filed 1992-01-23(a)(3), (a)(4)

The Court disagrees with this proposition and concludes that only that portion of post-confirmation income from services needed to fund the plan becomes property of the estate and protected by the automatic stay. The balance of such post-confirmation income or other property acquired by the Debtors not needed to fund a plan, is the Debtors’ individual property and not insulated from post-petition claims nor protected by section 362(a)(3) or (a)(4).

Section 362(a) protects postconfirmation Chapter 13 wages devoted to plan payments, but does not bar a postpetition creditor from garnishing wages that vested in the debtor and are not devoted to the plan.

American General Finance, Inc. v. McKnight (In Re McKnight) · filed 1992-02-14(a)

However, under the terms of the debtor’s plan and order of confirmation, only post petition earnings devoted to plan payments constitute post confirmation property of the estate and are protected under the stay of § 362(a).

Section 362(a) protects a Chapter 13 debtor’s post-confirmation earnings only to the extent they are devoted to plan payments and remain property of the estate.

United States Postal Service v. Black (In Re Heath) · filed 1996-07-15(a)

Only those post-petition earnings which are devoted to plan payments constitute property of the estate. Consequently, only that portion of earnings is protected by the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

The automatic stay does not bar a levy on a Chapter 13 debtor’s post-confirmation wages that are not committed to funding the plan, because those wages are not property of the estate.

In Re Markowicz · filed 1993-01-21(a)(3), (a)(4)

Thus, the only issue before the Court is whether post-petition wages not committed to the funding of a Chapter 13 plan are property of the estate, thereby making a levy on such wages violative of the automatic stay. ... For the foregoing reason, the Court finds that the post-confirmation levy of the IRS to collect post-petition taxes did not violate the automatic stay.

Section 362(a)(1)-(3) does not bar postpetition delivery of a foreclosure deed or notice of entry of a prepetition order when a prepetition foreclosure sale extinguished the debtor’s ownership rights and neither act affected the debtor’s remaining possessory interest.

Patricia Murphy · filed 2024-05-01(a)(1)-(3)

Once the sale took place, the Debtor only retained a mere possessory right in and to the Property after the foreclosure sale and the conduct complained of by the Debtor by Deutsche Bank and RASC did not violate the stay imposed by § 362(a)(1)-(3).

Section 362(a)(3) bars execution, delivery, and recordation of a foreclosure trustee’s deed after a bankruptcy filing, even when the foreclosure sale occurred before filing.

Jacarae Lea Fairbanks · filed 2021-01-25(a)(3)

The Court holds that the acts of executing and delivering the deed to the purchaser and the subsequent recordation of the Trustee’s Deed violated the automatic stay.

Section 362(a)(3) does not bar postpetition recording of a foreclosure deed when the foreclosure sale was completed before the bankruptcy petition and terminated the debtor’s interest in the property.

In Re Hazleton · filed 1992-02-06(a)(3)

The Court holds that a foreclosure sale concluded pre-petition terminates any Federal interest of the debtor in the foreclosed upon real property. It therefore follows that the foreclosed property is not part of the debtor’s estate and the recordation of the foreclosure deed in compliance with N.H.Rev. Stat.Ann. 479:26 is not a violation of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3).

Section 362(a) makes a foreclosure sale void when it occurs after the bankruptcy petition is filed and the automatic stay has taken effect.

In Re Domaleczny · filed 1992-07-13(a)

At least on the facts here, the petition was filed when it was placed in the custody of the clerk and the Debtors were ready and able to pay the filing fee. The petition was therefore filed prior to the judicial foreclosure sale. Since the automatic stay was in place at the time of the sale, the sale was void.

Section 362(a) makes postpetition garnishment a stay violation even when the creditor received no notice of the bankruptcy.

In Re Venegas · filed 2001-01-03(a)

Although she was not given proper notice of the filing of Debtor’s bankruptcy petition and the automatic stay, the stay was nonetheless effective against Creditor’s garnishment. As stated above, a creditor is not required to have knowledge of the automatic stay in order to violate the stay. A violation of the stay occurs whenever a creditor collects, or attempts to collect, a debt after the filing of a bankruptcy case. Garnishing the wages of a bankruptcy debtor is a collection effort. In short, Creditor violated the automatic stay.

Section 362(b)(3) allows postpetition recording of a trustee’s deed to maintain or continue a foreclosure purchaser’s perfected title when the certificate of foreclosure sale was recorded before the bankruptcy petition and the deed conveys no new title.

In re Richter · filed 2015-01-20(b)(3)

Rustling Oaks was a purchaser for value, having paid $36,000 for the Residence, and its conveyance, in the form of the Certificate of Foreclosure Sale, was recorded first and prior to the petition date. It follows that the recordation of the Trustee’s Deed, which gave Rustling Oaks no new title, was an act to maintain or continue the perfection of its title in the Residence that does not violate the stay under § 362(b)(3).

After a prepetition New Hampshire foreclosure auction, any automatic stay preventing recording of the foreclosure deed during Chapter 13 ends when the case converts to Chapter 7.

Cornell v. Envoy Mortgage, Ltd. (In re Hosch) · filed 2016-06-28

Nevertheless, even assuming, arguendo, that Bee-man is correct and the Chapter 13 filing prevented Envoy from recording the foreclosure deed, that stay terminated on October 6, 2015, upon the conversion of the case to Chapter 7 and Hazelton then controlled.

The automatic stay does not require a foreclosing mortgagee to seek relief before recording a foreclosure deed after the debtor’s case converts to Chapter 7.

Gordon v. Envoy Mortgage, Ltd. · filed 2017-03-20

It is, however, plain that in the context of a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the automatic stay does not apply and, therefore, the foreclosing mortgagee need not seek relief prior to recording a foreclosure deed.

Section 362 does not bar postpetition recording of a substitute trustee’s deed after a completed prepetition foreclosure sale that terminated the debtor’s interest in the property.

Jones v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In re Jones) · filed 2017-08-30

The Property was not subject to the protection of the automatic stay and the Defendants did not violate the stay by recording the Substitute Trustee’s Deed postpetition.

Section 362(a)(3) prohibits intentionally recording a deed affecting estate property after the filer enters bankruptcy when the recorder knows of the bankruptcy.

Barrett, Trustee v. Nancy Ann Rogers, Substitute Trustee · filed 2020-05-14(a)(3)

Because the Defendants knew about the bankruptcy cases and intentionally recorded the Substitute Trustee’s Deed, the Defendants violated the automatic stay.

Section 362(b)(3) permits issuance and recording of a California foreclosure deed after a bankruptcy filing when the foreclosure sale occurred before filing and the deed is recorded within the 15-day period for perfection under California law.

Jason William Svacina · filed 2020-05-27(b)(3)

Breckenridge did properly and timely perfect post- petition and section 362(b)(3) creates a specific exception to the automatic stay that allowed these steps, including issuing and recording the deed.

Section 362(a) renders a foreclosure sale void when the sale is completed after the bankruptcy petition is filed.

Gerson A. Manzueta · filed 2020-10-06(a)

Accordingly, the Court rules that the Debtor has rebutted the presumption of an 11:41 a.m. filing and has established that the petition was “filed” within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 301 prior to the signing of the memorandum of sale at 11:15 a.m., rendering the foreclosure sale void by the operation of the automatic stay.

Section 362(b)(3) permits a foreclosing lender to record a trustee’s deed within 21 days of the foreclosure sale; later recordation without relief from the stay violates the automatic stay and is void.

Wilkinson v. PHH Mortgage Corporation · filed 2025-09-16(b)(3)

Other recordations of the Trustees Deed Upon Sale violate the stay and are void.

Section 362(a)(6) prohibits a prepetition creditor from withholding a debtor-student's transcript to collect a debt.

In Re Weiner Merchant, Debtor. Andrews University v. Weiner Merchant · filed 1992-03-11(a)(6)

We follow the reasoning of these decisions and hold a violation of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) arises when a prepetition creditor withholds a student-debtor's transcript.

Section 362 bars an educational institution from withholding a debtor’s minor child’s transcripts to collect a pre-petition debt after the debtor files for Chapter 13 bankruptcy.

Scroggins v. Roman Catholic Church of Diocese (In Re Scroggins) · filed 1997-06-12

In the case at bar, Xavier is withholding the high school transcripts of the Debtors’s minor daughter in an attempt to collect the pre-petition debt incurred by the Debtors. The Court finds and concludes that Xavier’s actions violate the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 362 because the educational institution is attempting to collect on a pre-petition debt after the commencement of the Chapter 13 Bankruptcy case.

Section 362(a)(6) does not prohibit a university from withholding a chapter 13 debtor’s transcript when the debtor has defaulted on a nondischargeable student loan.

In Re Billingsley · filed 2002-04-18(a)(6)

Under basic contract law, a university is excused from delivering a transcript to a student who is in default under her student loan. It is not a violation of Section 362(a)(6) of the Code to refuse to release a transcript for such a student-debtor in a chapter 13 case.

Section 362(a)(6) prohibits a university from denying registration for classes or graduation to compel payment of a prepetition debt, even while it considers seeking a nondischargeability determination.

Parker v. Boston University (In Re Parker) · filed 2005-11-17(a)(6)

There being no exception to the automatic stay for debts determined to be nondischargeable, it follows that there is no exception to the automatic stay for creditors contemplating whether or not to seek a determination of nondischargeability as to a particular debt. Also, B.U. cannot reasonably argue that the act of not allowing Parker to register for a class and for graduation was done for any purpose other than to compel Parker to pay her debt. Accordingly, I conclude that B.U.’s action violated the automatic stay of § 362(a)(6).

Section 362(a)(6) prohibits a university from withholding a debtor’s academic transcripts to collect unpaid prepetition tuition.

In Re Walker · filed 2005-12-19(a)(6)

The Court holds that JU is in violation of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(6) and the university is ordered to immediately release Debtor’s transcripts, as soon as the customary fee is paid.

Section 362(a)(6) bars a university from withholding a requested transcript to collect a nondischargeable student loan unless it promptly seeks stay relief, and § 362(k) allows actual damages despite good-faith reliance on persuasive authority concerning unsettled law.

In Re Mu'min · filed 2007-09-25(a)(6), (k)

Accordingly, I conclude that the automatic stay remains in effect, irrespective of a determination of dischargeability under § 523(a)(8). ... As expressed in Hernandez, a university receiving a request for a transcript has a choice. It must either provide the transcript to the debtor in the ordinary course or promptly file a motion for relief from the automatic stay. ... Given this carefully constructed exception drawn by Congress, I conclude that University Medical Center is inconsistent with § 362(k), insofar as the case held that a party is not subject to actual damages for voluntary acts taken with knowledge of the bankruptcy case in violation of the automatic stay when a party relies upon “persuasive legal authority” and the law on the issue is sufficiently unsettled.

Section 362(a)(6) prohibits a university from withholding a certified transcript to collect prepetition tuition when the student has a state-law right to the transcript.

In Re Kuehn · filed 2009-04-16(a)(6)

The University’s refusal to honor that right until Kuehn paid her back tuition was an act to collect a debt and thereby violated the automatic stay and discharge injunction.

Section 362(a)(6) bars a university from withholding a debtor’s transcript because of a financial hold used to collect a prepetition debt.

California Coast University v. Aleckna (In re Aleckna) · filed 2016-01-14(a)(6)

T also join Judge Frank, and other courts, in concluding that a university’s refusal to provide a transcript based upon a financial hold is an action designed to collect the unpaid debt. ... I conclude that the first required element to sustain a § 362(k) claim — a violation of the automatic stay — has been established.

Section 362(e) requires a final stay relief hearing to begin within 30 days after the preliminary hearing; merely calling the case and continuing it without hearing evidence or argument does not commence the final hearing.

Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co. in Rehabilitation v. Stanley Station Associates, L.P. (In Re Stanley Station Associate · filed 1992-04-21(e)

If the goal of § 362(e) is to be met, then calling a case and continuing it without hearing evidence or argument from counsel cannot constitute the commencement of the final hearing upon a lift stay motion.

A creditor that waits until after the thirty-day hearing period to notify interested parties of a stay-relief hearing impliedly waives strict enforcement of § 362(e)’s deadline.

In Re Orfa Corp. of Philadelphia · filed 1994-04-26(e)

... the court concludes that the Bank’s failure to notify the other parties of the scheduled hearing date until after the thirty-day period had already expired constituted an implied waiver of strict adherence to that thirty-day limit.

A party that combines a request for stay relief with injunctive relief requiring an adversary proceeding waives the automatic termination provision of § 362(e).

In Re Van Ness · filed 2009-01-23(e)

The movant's election to combine injunctive relief with stay relief operates to waive the automatic termination provision of § 362(e).

A party seeking relief from the automatic stay as part of an adversary proceeding waives the deadlines under Section 362(e) for determining stay relief.

In re Vanness · filed 2009-01-23(e)

If, however, a party in interest presents a request for relief from automatic stay as part of an adversary proceeding, then that party necessarily waives the deadlines created by § 362(e) for determination of the stay relief question.

Section 362(e) requires the final hearing on a request for relief from the automatic stay to begin within 30 days after the preliminary hearing ends; reconsideration a year later cannot serve as that final hearing.

BancTexas Dallas, N.A. v. Chateaugay Corp. (In re Chateaugay Corp.) · filed 1989-06-30(e)

Because the statute requires that the final hearing commence within 30 days after “the conclusion” of the preliminary hearing, Judge Lifland’s reconsideration of the issue in one year cannot properly be the final hearing contemplated by the statute, and cannot make the October 20, 1988 hearing a preliminary hearing for purposes of the statute.

A party may implicitly waive Section 362(e)’s hearing deadline by agreeing to continue the stay hearing beyond it.

Iseberg v. Exchange National Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago (In Re Wilmette Partners) · filed 1983-11-30(e)

This court concurs with the rule that suggests a party can waive the provisions of Section 362(e). Considering the facts and circumstances in the instant case, this court finds that Exchange implicitly waived its right to object to the timeliness of the present hearings.

Section 362(a)(1) stays a proceeding against a debtor even when the debtor is sued in another capacity.

Great American Insurance Company v. Du Hancourt · filed 2020-07-28(a)(1)

Thus, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), the Court stayed all proceedings against 53rd Place and du Hancourt. ... Because the Court has stayed this case as to du Hancourt in her individual capacity, the Court declines to enter default judgment against du Hancourt in her capacity as Executrix.

Section 362(a)(1) stays judicial proceedings against a debtor acting as personal representative of a probate estate, including a petition to remove the debtor from that role.

In Re Panayotoff · filed 1992-05-20(a)(1)

Section 362(a)(1), then, stays judicial proceedings brought against a debtor solely in the debtor’s capacity as personal representative of a probate estate.

Section 362(a)(1) stays prepetition proceedings against a debtor even when the assets involved are not property of the bankruptcy estate.

Raymark Industries, Inc., Debtor-Appellant v. Lai · filed 1992-09-02(a)(1)

As we stated in Borman, the automatic stay of section 362 applies to all actions brought against a debtor, either pre- or post-petition, regardless of whether the assets in question are considered property of the debtor’s estate.

Section 362(a)(1) stays proceedings against a debtor, but a debtor's third-party claim against someone else may continue in the same case.

In Re Duncan · filed 1993-03-29(a)(1)

We note that the third-party action instigated by the Duncans against the Normans was not subject to the automatic stay provision of the bankruptcy code. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) forbids continuation of a "proceeding against the debtor." (Emphasis added) Within a single case, some actions may be stayed, others not.

Section 362(a)(1) stays a judicial proceeding commenced against a debtor before the bankruptcy petition was filed.

Texas Employers Insurance v. Underwriting Members of Lloyds · filed 1993-08-26(a)(1)

A petition filed under 11 U.S.C. §§ 301, et seq. operates as a stay of a judicial proceeding against the debtor that was commenced before the bankruptcy proceeding.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays an appeal when the original proceeding was against the debtor, whether the debtor is the appellant or the appellee.

FLORIDA EASTERN DEV v. Len-Hal Realty · filed 1994-03-09(a)(1)

We are persuaded by the above reasoning and therefore recede from our opinion in Marine Charter and hold that the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) apply on appeal, regardless of whether the debtor is an appellant or appellee, where the original proceedings were against the debtor.

Section 362(a)(1) stays an appeal involving a counterclaim against a debtor because the counterclaim is a proceeding against the debtor, even if the debtor brought the original lawsuit.

Stanley Koolik, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. Stanley Markowitz, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee · filed 1994-11-14(a)(1)

Thus, an answer that asserts a counterclaim against a plaintiff who becomes a bankruptcy debtor is an “action or proceeding against the debtor” within the meaning of § 362(a)(1), notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff initiated the lawsuit.

Section 362(a)(1) stays judicial proceedings against the debtor, not proceedings brought by the debtor.

Hartford Leasing Corp. v. State · filed 1994-12-29(a)(1)

So far as judicial proceedings are concerned, section 362 refers only to proceedings "against the debtor."

Section 362 stays future proceedings against a defendant that has filed for bankruptcy protection until the Bankruptcy Court vacates the stay.

Vitolo v. Dow Corning Corp. · filed 1995-09-28

Accordingly, all future proceedings in this action against Dow Corning are stayed until vacated by the Bankruptcy Court (11 USC § 362).

Section 362 stays proceedings against a defendant who files a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition.

Plumeau v. Yamhill County School District 40 · filed 1995-11-14

Because Moore filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding on January 6, 1995, all proceedings against him are stayed. 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362(a)(1) stays an appeal from a judgment granting a counterclaim against a debtor, even when the debtor initiated the lawsuit, until the bankruptcy court grants relief from the stay or the stay lapses.

Howell v. Brozzetti · filed 1997-06-05(a)(1)

Because plaintiff appeals from a judgment which, inter alia, awarded defendants rescission of the contract and the return of their down payment as requested in their counterclaim (compare, Carley Capital Group v Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 889 F2d 1126, 1127), we conclude that this appeal is stayed by plaintiff’s bankruptcy petition until Bankruptcy Court grants relief from the automatic stay or it lapses (see, Parker v Bain, supra, at 1137; Koolik v Markowitz, supra; cf., Beltrone v General Schuyler & Co., 229 AD2d 857).

Section 362(a)(1) stays a taxpayer’s challenge to a transfer assessment when the tax authority seeks to hold the taxpayer personally liable for a corporation’s trust fund taxes, because the proceeding is against the debtor.

Saucier v. State Tax Assessor · filed 1998-03-25(a)(1)

In these circumstances, the administrative proceeding is properly characterized as one initiated “against the debtor,” and the bankruptcy code’s automatic stay provision is applicable.

Section 362(a)(1) stays a motion for attorney’s fees against a debtor when the motion could have been filed before the bankruptcy petition.

Williams v. Williams · filed 2000-05-30(a)(1)

We find wife’s motion for attorney’s fees was clearly a formal action against husband, the debtor, because it was a commencement of a judicial proceeding against husband that could have been commenced on or before October 26, 1998, i.e., before the commencement of his petition for bankruptcy.

Section 362(a)(1) stays a proceeding involving a debtor who acts as the personal representative of another person’s estate.

Carver v. Moody · filed 2001-02-09(a)(1)

Even if Carver is not acting in his individual capacity in this appeal, we determine that the automatic stay provision applies in cases in which the debtor is acting as the personal representative of an estate.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay a Rule 2004 examination of an individual debtor sought in a separate corporate bankruptcy case when the examination is not an action against the individual debtor.

In re Carlson · filed 2001-07-25(a)(1)

The requested 2004 examination was not an action against the Debtor. It was a discovery proceeding in the Perfection bankruptcy case, wherein PKGD was attempting to conduct an examination of the majority shareholder and president of Perfection.

Section 362(a)(1) stays the continuation of a judicial proceeding against a debtor to recover a claim that arose before the bankruptcy case began.

In Re Azurix Corp. Securities Litigation · filed 2002-03-21(a)(1)

A petition filed under the Bankruptcy Code operates as a stay of the continuation of a judicial proceeding against the debtor to recover a claim against the debtor that arose before commencement of the bankruptcy proceedings.

Section 362(a)(1) prohibits commencing or continuing a judicial proceeding against a debtor after its bankruptcy petition is filed.

Republic Technologies International, LLC v. Maley (In re Republic Technologies International, LLC) · filed 2002-09-20(a)(1)

11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) prohibits the commencement or continuation of a judicial proceeding against debtors.

Section 362 stays proceedings against a defendant that files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, so the court defers adjudication of that defendant’s pending motion to dismiss.

Bowens v. Aftermath Entertainment · filed 2003-03-28

Due to the imposition of the automatic stay, 11 U.S.C. § 362, which stays the proceedings against Wherehouse Entertainment in this Court, the Court will not adjudicate Where-house Entertainment’s Motion to Dismiss [docket entry 86] at this time.

Section 362(a)(1) prevents a court from deciding a pending summary judgment motion against a debtor while the automatic stay remains in effect.

Place v. California Webbing Industries, Inc. · filed 2003-04-03(a)(1)

Clearly, then, in light of the foregoing recitation, this Court is without authority to pass on Lifland’s motion for summary judgment until either his bankruptcy ease is resolved, ... or the bankruptcy court lifts the stay.

Section 362(a) stays pending proceedings against a corporate defendant that files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Meng v. Schwartz · filed 2004-02-06(a)

Upon consideration of the notice of bankruptcy of defendant Loral Space and Communications, Ltd., all proceedings herein as to Loral are STAYED as required by the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

Section 362(a)(1) stays probate proceedings to remove a debtor as executor of an estate, and the movant must obtain relief from the stay before pursuing removal.

In Re Steward · filed 2006-02-24(a)(1)

Probate proceedings against a debtor as executor of an estate are subject to the stay based on the broad language of § 362(a)(1), and for the proceeding to go forward, the movant must first request relief from the stay.

Section 362 prevents a debtor in a pending involuntary bankruptcy proceeding from being joined in a civil action.

Tucker v. Thomas · filed 2012-02-15(a)(1)

This Court agrees that Mr. Tucker cannot be joined in this action due to his pending involuntary bankruptcy proceeding, thus the inquiry into this motion is with regard to whether Mr. Tucker is truly an indispensable party, and if he is, whether dismissal is the proper remedy.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays the continuation of a judicial proceeding against a debtor after the debtor files for bankruptcy.

Hazlewood v. Werley · filed 2013-05-08(a)(1)

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

Section 362(a)(1) stays a debtor’s appeal of an administrative determination initiated by a creditor to collect a debt, and administrative decisions issued after the stay takes effect are void.

In re Bennett · filed 2015-04-07(a)(1)

For these reasons, I conclude that the Debtor’s petition for review was an appeal from an administrative action initiated by the City — ie., the administrative determination that the Debtor was liable to the City for unpaid water bills in a certain sum — and therefore, all proceedings emanating from that initial determination are subject to the automatic stay. It follows that the April 22, 2014 TRB Master’s recommendation and April 30, 2014 TRB determination of liability are void and cannot be the basis for the application of res judicata.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay a habeas proceeding initiated by the debtor because it is not an action or proceeding against the debtor.

Gregory v. Denham · filed 2015-08-18(a)(1)

But here, Mr. Gregory initiated the habeas proceedings in the district court. Thus, it is not an “action or proceeding against the debt- or” and does not fall within the plain language of § 362. For this reason, Mr. Gregory’s bankruptcy petition and the resulting automatic stay under § 362 of the Bankruptcy Code did not prevent the court’s denial of his Rule 60(d)(3) motion.

Section 362(a)(1) stays a proceeding only if it was originally brought against the debtor; a debtor’s intervention in an existing proceeding does not trigger the stay.

In re: Prommis Holdings LLC v. · filed 2016-12-20(a)(1)

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

Section 362(a)(1) stays proceedings against the debtor, so an appeal in a suit the debtor filed may proceed.

Amrhein v. Attorney Lennie F. Bollinger, and Worminton & Bollinger Law Firm · filed 2019-07-03(a)(1)

As appellees note in their response, the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay, upon which appellate rule 8 is based, applies only to proceedings against the debtor. ... The underlying suit in this appeal was filed by appellant. Accordingly, the appeal will proceed.

Section 362(a)(1) stays arbitration proceedings against a debtor to collect a prepetition debt, and a state court order confirming an award entered in violation of the stay is void as to the debtor.

Rajesh C Patel · filed 2019-08-19(a)(1)

Because the arbitration was a judicial proceeding against Debtor to collect a prepetition debt and was commenced after Debtor filed bankruptcy, the Award was a violation of the automatic stay. Therefore, the Superior Court Order, which confirmed the Award, was also entered in violation of the automatic stay and is void as to Debtor.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays a pending judicial proceeding against a defendant who files for bankruptcy.

Melwani v. Eagle Point Financial LLC · filed 2019-09-20(a)(1)

Under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1), Lipton is entitled to an automatic stay of “the commencement or continuation . . . of a judicial . . . proceeding against [him] that was . .. commenced before” he filed for bankruptcy.

Section 362(a)(1) stays further action in a prepetition lawsuit against the debtor while the bankruptcy case remains open and the stay has not been lifted.

Farris v. Energy One Solar · filed 2019-10-11(a)(1)

Plaintiffs’ case against Defendant Energy One Solar ought to have been stayed, and no further action taken. The bankruptcy case remains open and no party in this case has requested a lift of the stay.

Section 362(a)(1) stays continuation of a creditor’s action against a debtor who has filed a bankruptcy petition.

Atlantic Union Bank v. Holt · filed 2020-03-17(a)(1)

Because John Holt, Ill, filed for bankruptcy protection, the Court cannot reach the Motion for Summary Judgment against him due to the automatic stay imposed by the Bankruptcy Code, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays judicial proceedings against a debtor after the debtor files a bankruptcy petition.

Luck v. McMahon · filed 2020-06-26(a)(1)

Because Alpha is in bankruptcy proceedings, under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1), an automatic stay of judicial proceedings for bankruptcy petitions filed under 11 U.S.C. §§ 301, 302, or 303 is required.

Section 362(a)(1) stays judicial proceedings against a debtor that has sought bankruptcy relief.

Pond v. Union Pacific Railroad Company · filed 2020-07-14(a)(1)

Under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), judicial actions or proceedings against a debtor that has applied for bankruptcy relief must be stayed against that debtor. Id. § 362(a)(1). Mr. Pond’s claims against Covia must be stayed pursuant to this provision.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays judicial proceedings against a debtor when an involuntary bankruptcy petition is filed.

Cajun Services Unlimited, LLC v. Benton Energy Service Company · filed 2021-03-12(a)(1)

Following oral argument, Cajun informed us that it had filed a petition for involuntary bankruptcy against debtor BESCO, and we stayed BESCO’s appeal in this court consistent with 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1), which imposes an automatic stay on judicial proceedings against a debtor when a petition for involuntary bankruptcy is filed.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays judicial proceedings against a debtor when the debtor files a bankruptcy petition.

Shirley v. Limetree Bay Ventures, LLC · filed 2021-07-16(a)(1)

Title 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) provides that the filing of a bankruptcy petition results in an automatic stay of judicial proceedings against the debtor. Accordingly, the instant civil actions are stayed as they pertain to claims against Defendant Limetree Refining.

Section 362(a)(1) stays proceedings against a debtor, but does not stay the debtor’s own suit when no claim is asserted against the debtor.

GEISLER v. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION · filed 2022-09-02(a)(1)

Defendants have not asserted any claim against Mr. Geisler in this case. Accordingly, the automatic stay does not apply, and the Court may resolve Defendants’ Motion.

Section 362(a)(1) bars a court from adopting a report and recommendation against a defendant after that defendant files for bankruptcy because adoption continues the judicial action against the debtor.

Mendoza v. Cavallo's of Chelsea, Inc. · filed 2022-09-22(a)(1)

Accordingly, as adopting the Report would be “the continuation . . . of a judicial action,” I cannot adopt the Report as it pertains to Naimo.

The automatic stay prevents a court from ruling on a motion to dismiss in an action against a debtor while the stay is in place, even if the debtor filed the motion.

Owners Insurance v. Gasore · filed 2023-02-02(a)(1)

Because Mr. Gasore is both the debtor and the defendant in this case, the court cannot rule on the motion to dismiss while the stay is in place.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays proceedings on prepetition claims against a debtor when a bankruptcy petition is filed.

Branum v. Phoenix, City of · filed 2023-09-21(a)(1)

Plaintiffs’ claims against Corizon fall within the scope of § 362(a)(1). Accordingly, all proceedings concerning Corizon are stayed in this matter, pending the bankruptcy proceeding’s completion.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays judicial proceedings against a debtor after a bankruptcy petition is filed.

Hendrickson v. Hall · filed 2023-10-16(a)(1)

11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) provides for an automatic stay of any judicial “proceeding against the debtor.”

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays a pending judicial proceeding against a debtor upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition, preventing reinstatement of an entry of default against the debtor while the stay is in effect.

Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Safe Chain Solutions, LLC · filed 2023-12-07(a)(1)

In light of this representation, an automatic stay is now in effect in this litigation as to Mr. Levitan pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). Gilead’s request that the Court reinstate the October 28, 2022 Entry of Default (Dkt. No. 839) against Mr. Levitan is therefore denied.

Section 362(a)(1) stays a prepetition lawsuit against a debtor and prevents the court from ruling on that debtor’s motions while the stay applies.

Chamberlin v. Technology Credit Union · filed 2024-03-11(a)(1)

The automatic stay applies to Sunlight and, therefore, this Court finds it cannot issue an opinion on Sunlight’s Motions to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss at this time.

Section 362(a)(1) stays prepetition judicial proceedings against a debtor, preventing a court from ruling on the debtor’s pending motions while the stay applies.

Bowe v. Cross River Bank · filed 2024-03-11(a)(1)

Section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code imposes an “automatic stay,” which enjoins, among other things, the continuation of judicial proceedings “against the debtor” that were or could have been commenced before the commencement of the bankruptcy case. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). Here, since Sunlight is a defendant in these consolidated cases, there is no question that these lawsuits are “against the debtor.” The automatic stay applies to Sunlight and, therefore, this Court finds it cannot issue an opinion on Sunlight’s Motions to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss at this time.

Section 362(a)(1) stays a prepetition lawsuit against a debtor and prevents the court from ruling on the debtor’s motions while the stay applies.

Riley v. Technology Credit Union · filed 2024-03-11(a)(1)

Here, since Sunlight is a defendant in these consolidated cases, there is no question that these lawsuits are “against the debtor.” The automatic stay applies to Sunlight and, therefore, this Court finds it cannot issue an opinion on Sunlight’s Motions to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss at this time.

Section 362(a)(1) stays the continuation of a lawsuit against a bankruptcy debtor, preventing the court from ruling on the debtor’s pending motion while the stay applies.

Salazar v. Cross River Bank · filed 2024-03-11(a)(1)

Here, since Sunlight is a defendant in these consolidated cases, there is no question that these lawsuits are “against the debtor.” The automatic stay applies to Sunlight and, therefore, this Court finds it cannot issue an opinion on Sunlight’s Motions to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss at this time.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays judicial proceedings against a debtor after the debtor files for bankruptcy, preventing the court from ruling on the debtor’s pending motions while the stay applies.

Genton v. Technology Credit Union · filed 2024-03-11(a)(1)

The automatic stay applies to Sunlight and, therefore, this Court finds it cannot issue an opinion on Sunlight’s Motions to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss at this time.

Section 362(a)(1) stays a prepetition lawsuit against a debtor and prevents the court from ruling on the debtor’s pending motions while the stay applies.

Stenger v. Technology Credit Union · filed 2024-03-11(a)(1)

The automatic stay applies to Sunlight and, therefore, this Court finds it cannot issue an opinion on Sunlight’s Motions to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss at this time.