11 U.S.C. § 362

Section 362(a) stays collection of unpaid fees owed under a prepetition flat fee agreement in a Chapter 7 case, even if the agreement covers postpetition services.

In re Michel · filed 2014-04-08(a)

The Court agrees with those cases holding that this kind of pre-petition flat fee agreement in a Chapter 7 case creates a debt that is entirely a pre-petition debt, which therefore is subject to the automatic stay and is dischargeable in the Chapter 7 case.

The automatic stay prohibits a postpetition suit to collect fees for prepetition services.

Louie Joseph Aquilino and Robin Aquilino · filed 2023-02-23

Moreover, SGRYV is seeking to collect pre-petition fees in the Pennsylvania Case, in violation of the automatic stay, and for services that were allegedly included in that $3,500 pre-petition payment.

Section 362(a) prohibits a creditor from continuing to collect a prepetition debt after the debtor files for bankruptcy.

Steven Louis Schullo · filed 2024-03-04(a)

Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that Apex’s continued efforts to collect on a pre-petition debt without any regard for the automatic stay amount to willful violations of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

Section 362(a) does not prohibit a creditor from applying postconfirmation plan payments it has received to postpetition attorney fees because the payments are no longer property of the estate.

Telfair v. First Union Mortgage Corp. (In Re Telfair) · filed 1998-08-26(a)(3)

Section 362(a)(3) & (a)(4) prohibit postpetition actions against property of the estate. Postconfirmation the only property of the estate remaining is the debtor’s postconfirmation earnings used as payments pursuant to the plan. However, once the payment is made, that is tendered to the creditor pursuant to the plan, the payment is no longer property of the estate. The payment becomes property of the creditor. Whether the creditor properly applied the payment is purely a question of state law. Section 362(a) has nothing to do with that application. There is no § 362(a) stay violation.

Section 362(a)(6) supports a stay violation claim when a creditor misapplies Chapter 13 plan payments and transfers the resulting inflated balance for collection of a prepetition claim.

Williams, Sr. v. OneMain Financial Group, LLC · filed 2020-01-24(a)(6)

As such, the allegations in the Amended Complaint are sufficient for the Court to make the reasonable inference that alleged misapplied payments by CitiFinancial and Carrington were not simply bookkeeping entries without impact and communicated to no one, but were used to support an inflated loan balance that was transferred from one creditor to another for collection from Plaintiffs.

Section 362(k) permits recovery for a willful stay violation when a creditor misapplies Chapter 13 plan payments, transfers an inflated loan balance that leads to collection efforts, and causes actual damages.

Bivens v. NewRez LLC · filed 2021-03-25(k)

Here, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant misapplied payments and then transferred the account with an inflated loan balance which led the subsequent claim holder to attempt to collect the inflated balance. These allegations are sufficient for this Court to make the reasonable inference that the alleged misapplied payments were not simply internal bookkeeping records as discussed in Mann.

Misapplication of payments under a Chapter 13 plan can violate the automatic stay even after the creditor receives the funds.

Culberson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC dba Mr. Cooper · filed 2022-06-10(a)

This Court finds that the misapplication of payments can be a violation of the automatic stay and rejects the holding of Rodriguez that the lender’s possession of the funds negates an improper exercise over property of the estate..

Section 362(h) permits emotional distress damages as actual damages for a willful violation of the automatic stay, without requiring intent to inflict distress or physical contact.

Holden v. United States (In Re Holden) · filed 1998-10-14(h)

Alternatively, the IRS has argued that if emotional damages are to be awarded then they should be restricted to those instances where there is intent to inflict emotional distress or physical contact or the threat of physical contact. We won’t adopt this theory because we believe § 362 contemplates damages for emotional distress. Emotional distress is an actual injury.

Section 362(h) permits damages for emotional distress when medical or other corroborating evidence shows more than fleeting distress, or when extreme creditor conduct and credible debtor testimony support the injury.

Aiello v. Providian Financial Corp. (In Re Aiello) · filed 1999-03-25(h)

The rule of law derived from these cases is that there must be some medical or other corroborating evidence to support the debtor’s claim which shows that the debtor suffered something more than just fleeting and inconsequential distress, embarrassment, humiliation and annoyance. However, if the creditor’s conduct is so egregious and extreme that one would normally expect emotional distress to occur, then the court may allow such damages without requiring additional evidence if it finds the debtor’s testimony to be credible.

Section 362(h) permits recovery for substantial emotional distress from a stay violation when supported by evidence, or when sufficiently offensive conduct justifies a presumption of distress.

Aiello v. Providian Financial Corp. · filed 2000-03-24(h)

In summary, emotional distress must be more than “fleeting, inconsequential, and medically insignificant” to be compensable. ... Where no medical evidence exists, however, emotional distress can be reasonably presumed where the stay violation is sufficiently offensive. ... In contrast, where the violation of the stay, although technically a violation, is innocuous, alleged emotional distress is noncompensable without further substantiation.

Section 362(h) permits emotional distress damages for an automatic stay violation without medical testimony in an appropriate case.

In re Alberto · filed 2000-10-20(h)

This court agrees with the rational of the above cases and finds that emotional distress damages can be awarded against creditors for violation of the automatic stay. In addition, this court concurs with District Judge Na-gle, in affirming the Bankruptcy Court, that in the appropriate case, this may be done without the necessity of medical testimony.

Section 362(h) permits compensatory damages for emotional distress from a willful stay violation only with medical or other corroborating evidence of more than fleeting and inconsequential distress.

Patton v. Shade · filed 2001-01-22(h)

Based on these cases, emotional distress cannot serve as a basis for awarding compensatory damages unless there is “some medical or other corroborating evidence to support the debtor’s claim which shows that the debtor suffered something more than just fleeting and inconsequential distress, embarrassment, humiliation and annoyance.”

Section 362(h) does not compensate emotional injury from a stay violation when the debtor alleges no financial loss.

Aiello, Laura A. v. Providian Financial · filed 2001-02-06(h)

No financial injury is alleged in this case, and we do not think that emotional injury is compensable under section 362(h) when there is no financial loss to hitch it to by means of the clean-up doctrine.

Section 362(h) permits an award of actual damages for emotional distress caused by a willful stay violation even without other damages.

Bishop v. U.S. Bank/Firstar Bank, N.A. (In Re Bishop) · filed 2003-05-02(h)

However, I hold that emotional distress is an actual harm that qualifies for an award of actual damages under § 362(h) without regard to the existence of other damages.

Actual damages under Section 362(h) do not include damages for emotional distress caused by a violation of the automatic stay.

Dawson v. Washington Mutual Bank · filed 2004-05-18(h)

We hold that "actual damages" under § 362(h) do not include damages for emotional distress.

Actual damages under § 362(h) for a willful violation of the automatic stay do not include damages for emotional distress.

Dawson v. Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. (In re Dawson) · filed 2004-05-18(h)

We hold that “actual damages” under § 362(h) do not include damages for emotional distress.

Section 362(h) permits emotional distress damages without pecuniary loss when an individual clearly establishes significant emotional harm causally connected to a willful violation of the automatic stay.

Dawson v. Washington Mutual Bank · filed 2004-12-10(h)

Although pecuniary loss is not required in order to claim emotional distress damages, not every willful violation merits compensation for emotional distress. ... To that end, we hold that, to be entitled to damages for emotional distress under § 362(h), an individual must (1) suffer significant harm, (2) clearly establish the significant harm, and (3) demonstrate a causal connection between that significant harm and the violation of the automatic stay (as distinct, for instance, from the anxiety and pressures inherent in the bankruptcy process).

Section 362(h) permits recovery of emotional distress damages without economic injury.

Stinson v. Cook Perkiss & Lew, APC · filed 2005-04-01(h)

The BAP therefore erred by requiring a finding of economic damages as a prerequisite to emotional distress damages, ... and is reversed in that regard.

Section 362(h) does not authorize emotional distress damages as actual damages for a willful violation of the automatic stay.

United States v. Harchar · filed 2005-09-28(h)

Because emotional damages are not compensable under § 362(h), the Harchars’ amendment of the complaint to include such damages was futile.

Under former § 362(h), emotional distress damages require proof that the willful stay violation was a substantial factor in causing the distress, rather than its sole cause.

Dawson v. Washington Mutual Bank (In Re Dawson) · filed 2006-07-27(h)

However, to establish causation, Mrs. Dawson is not required to prove that the Bank’s stay violation was the sole cause of Mr. Dawson’s emotional distress. Causation requires only proof that the offending conduct was a substantial factor.

Section 362(k) permits recovery for significant emotional distress causally connected to a stay violation, but not for fleeting or trivial emotional distress.

Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Taylor (Taylor) · filed 2007-03-30(k)

Damages for emotional distress are recoverable for § 362(k) violations. ... While claims for fleeting or trivial emotional distress are not compensable, an individual who suffers significant harm and demonstrates a causal connection between the harm and the violation of the automatic stay is entitled to be compensated.

Section 362(k)(1) permits emotional distress damages without financial injury, but a debtor alleging a non-egregious stay violation must provide corroborating evidence of significant emotional harm caused by the violation.

Wingard v. Altoona Regional Health Systems (In Re Wingard) · filed 2008-03-06(k)(1)

The plain reading of the statute therefore supports the conclusion that emotional distress damages standing alone could form a basis of recovery under Section 362(k)(l) of the Bankruptcy Code. ... Under applicable law, fleeting or inconsequential injury is not actionable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(k)(l). As a consequence, it was incumbent upon the Wingards to demonstrate to the Court in these proceedings that the Wingards suffered significant harm as a result of the Defendants’ collection activity. ... No objective corroborating evidence was introduced into the record which the Court could conclude that the debtors have actually suffered significant mental distress at the hands of the Defendants.

Section 362(k) permits damages for emotional distress caused by a willful violation of the automatic stay under appropriate circumstances.

In Re Griffin · filed 2009-07-01(k)

Having reached the conclusion that a willful violation of the automatic stay may warrant compensation for emotional distress pursuant to Code § 362(k), the Court is still left with the issue of whether sovereign immunity prevents it from making such an award against a governmental entity such as SSA.

Section 362(k) permits emotional distress damages for a willful stay violation when the plaintiff suffers significant emotional distress, clearly establishes it, and shows that the violation caused it.

Kenneth Lodge v. Kondaur Capital Corporation · filed 2014-05-08(k)

We thus hold that, at a minimum, to recover “actual” damages for emotional distress under § 362(k), a plaintiff must (1) suffer significant emotional distress, (2) clearly establish the significant emotional distress, and (3) demonstrate a causal connection between that significant emotional distress and the violation of the automatic stay.

Section 362(k)(1) permits emotional distress damages for a willful stay violation only when the debtor clearly proves significant emotional harm caused by the violation.

In re Voll · filed 2014-06-06(k)(1)

Notwithstanding counsel’s impassioned arguments, this court is not persuaded to depart from established precedent that the recovery of emotional distress damages under § 362(k) is appropriate only where debtors make a clear showing that they suffered significant emotional harm as a result of the alleged violation. ... Accordingly, the court finds that Debtors have failed to establish clear and convincing evidence that they suffered significant emotional harm as a result of the Tax Department’s violation of the stay.

Section 362(k) allows emotional distress damages only when the debtor clearly shows significant harm caused by the stay violation.

In re Bourke · filed 2015-12-24(k)

However, the Court finds and concludes that Lynsey failed to satisfy her burden of clearly establishing that she suffered significant harm or that she demonstrated a causal connection between that significant harm and Missoula Bone & Joint’s violations of the automatic stay, as required by Snowden and Dawson. ... After consideration of -the record, the Court declines to award emotional distress damages under § 362(k).

Section 362(k)(1) permits an individual injured by a willful stay violation to recover emotional-distress damages as actual damages.

Garth F. Lansaw v. · filed 2017-04-10(k)(1)

We conclude that § 362(k)(1) authorizes the award of emotional-distress damages and that the Lansaws presented sufficient evidence to support such an award.

Section 362(k)(1) permits emotional distress damages for a willful stay violation when the violation causes actual harm, and an affidavit alleging that harm can create a factual dispute that prevents summary judgment.

Boltz-Rubinstein v. Bank of Am. (In re Boltz-Rubinstein) · filed 2019-02-08(k)(1)

The Debtor has submitted an affidavit alleging a host of emotional harms she claims to have suffered as a result of receiving the Notices from BOA which, if true, may support an award of actual damages for emotional distress. BOA disputes the credibility of the Debtor's Affidavit. Drawing all reasonable inferences in the Debtor's favor, I am satisfied that the issue of damages cannot be decided absent an appropriate factual determination that cannot be made at the summary judgment stage.

Section 362(k)(1) permits emotional distress damages for a willful stay violation without medical evidence when the violation is patently egregious.

In re Harrison · filed 2019-03-08(k)(1)

A bankruptcy court may award emotional distress damages without supporting medical evidence or testimony where the stay violations are "patently egregious."

Section 362(k)(1) does not permit recovery for emotional damages from an automatic stay violation under the rule applied by this court.

Christopher Scott Barksdale · filed 2019-11-13(k)(1)

However, pursuant to United States v. Harchar, a decision that is arguably binding on this Court, emotional damages are not compensable for violations of the automatic stay.

Section 362(k)(1) does not allow a debtor to recover emotional-distress damages for a willful stay violation; the debtor must bring a separate claim for that injury.

Braatz v. Check and Cash LLC · filed 2019-12-12(k)(1)

Such a debtor, though, cannot recover emotional-distress damages under §362(k)(1) itself and must instead assert a separate claim for which such damages are recoverable.

Section 362(k) permits actual damages for significant emotional distress caused by a willful violation of the automatic stay.

Ellery Steed v. GSRAN-Z, LLC · filed 2023-05-30(k)

Emotional distress damages fall within the broad term of “actual damages” in § 362(k).

Section 362(k) permits emotional distress damages against the United States for a willful violation of the automatic stay because § 106(a) waives sovereign immunity for that relief.

Hunsaker v. United States · filed 2018-08-30(k)

In light of this unambiguous scope, Section 106(a) waives sovereign immunity for emotional distress damages under Section 362(k).

Section 362(k) permits emotional distress damages for a stay violation without medical evidence or physical symptoms if the debtor can establish significant harm and causation through other evidence.

Lysyy v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company · filed 2025-02-20(k)

To recover damages for emotional distress under § 362(k), the debtor must “(1) suffer significant harm, (2) clearly establish the significant harm, and (3) demonstrate a causal connection between that significant harm and the violation of the automatic stay (as distinct, for instance, from the anxiety and pressures inherent in the bankruptcy process).” ... Thus, a lack of medical evidence or evidence of physical manifestations of distress does not foreclose Plaintiffs’ claim for emotional distress damages.

Section 362(k)(1) permits actual damages for proven emotional injury caused by a willful violation of the automatic stay.

Jarrett Nathan Tapp · filed 2020-07-10(k)(1)

Such damages may at times include recovery for emotional loss or injury.

Section 362 requires a postpetition creditor to obtain relief from the automatic stay before attaching or executing against Chapter 13 estate property to collect a postpetition debt.

In Re Bottone · filed 1998-11-04(a)(3), (a)(4)

Therefore, once a judgment has been obtained, a postpetition creditor must obtain relief from the automatic stay before it attaches or executes on property of the Chapter 13 estate.

Sections 362(a)(3) and (4) bar collection of postpetition tax debts against Chapter 13 estate property, which remains protected after plan confirmation unless the plan or confirmation order provides otherwise.

In Re Brensing · filed 2006-01-24(a)(3), (a)(4)

Sections 362(a)(3) and (4) stay any act against property of the estate, even efforts to collect upon postpetition liabilities. ... If upon confirmation of the debtor’s plan the property of the estate revests in the debtor and remains property of the estate, then such property remains subject to the terms of the confirmed plan and is entitled to all of the protections afforded under § 362(a).

Section 362 permits a suit to collect a post-petition debt but prohibits creating a lien against estate property without stay relief, rendering such a lien void.

In Re Jackson · filed 2009-03-05(a)(1), (a)(4)

Mountain States did not violate the automatic stay by initiating a lawsuit against Debtors to recover a post-petition debt. However, because the inherited properties were acquired by Debtors after confirmation of their plan, they became property of the estate by operation of § 1306(a). When Mountain States recorded its judgment in Lemhi County without first obtaining relief from this Court to do so, it created a lien which attached to property of the estate in violation of § 362(a)(4). Therefore, the Mountain States judgment lien is void with respect to the inherited properties.

Section 362(b)(9)(D) excepts tax assessments and notices demanding payment from the automatic stay, but notices of intent to levy that threaten collection are outside that exception.

Covington v. Internal Revenue Service (In Re Covington) · filed 2000-03-06(b)(9)(D)

These notices constitute a collection effort and advise the debtor of specific consequences if payment is not made within a certain period of time. They constitute threats which the IRS cannot in fact carry out because of the automatic stay but debtors, at least most debtors, don’t know this. This Court is of the opinion that the notices sent by the IRS to the debtors do not constitute an assessment and demand for payment and are not a collection efforts which are excepted from the stay by 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(9)(D).

Section 362(b)(9)(D) permits tax assessments and payment demands but does not authorize collection, garnishment, or seizure of estate funds for a pre-petition tax debt.

Lopez v. Department of Treasury ex rel. Rodriguez (In re Lopez) · filed 2013-04-26(b)(9)(D)

The exception to the automatic stay afforded in Section 362(b)(9)(D) is not absolute and does not give PR Treasury free leeway to collect, garnish or seize the bankruptcy estate’s funds to pay a pre-petition tax debt.

Section 362(b)(9)(D) permits post-petition assessment of tax interest and penalties because they are treated as part of the tax.

In Re Innovation Instruments, Inc. · filed 1998-12-15(b)(9)(D)

Interest and penalties are part of the “taxes” administered by the IRS and should thus be treated as part of the tax for the purpose of the automatic stay.

Under the pre-1994 version of § 362(a)(6), tax assessments made during the automatic stay on prepetition liabilities are void.

Ward v. Internal Revenue Service (In Re Ward) · filed 2001-01-29(a)(6)

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the April 15, 1991 assessments for the 1984, 1985, and 1987 tax years against the Wards are void and have no legal effect, that is to stay the same as if they had never occurred.

Section 362(b)(9)(D) permits an initial notice and demand for payment of a tax assessment during the automatic stay.

In Re Bryant · filed 2002-01-28(b)(9)(D)

Letter number (10) addressed to Ms. Bryant clearly requests that she pay the amount owed but, under 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(9), if it is an “issuance of a notice and demand for payment” of a tax assessment then it does not violate the automatic stay.

Section 362(b)(9)(D) excepts tax assessments and notices and demands for payment of those assessments from the automatic stay.

Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc. v. Various State & Local Taxing Authorities (In Re Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc.) · filed 2003-07-15(b)(9)(D)

But that question is moot because Section 362(b), which sets forth those cases in which the filing of a petition “does not operate as a stay,” in- ... eludes in subsection (9)(D) “the making of an assessment for any tax and issuance of a notice and demand for payment of such an assessment....”

Section 362(b)(9) permits the government to send the preliminary tax penalty notices required by the Internal Revenue Code despite the automatic stay.

In Re Brown · filed 2003-08-13(b)(9)

Code § 362(b)(9), which excludes certain acts from the operation of the automatic stay, includes “the issuance to the debtor by a governmental unit of a notice of tax deficiency,” (Section 362(b)(9)(B)) and “the making of an assessment for any tax and issuance of a notice and demand for payment for such an assessment....” (§ 362(b)(9)(D)). The court therefore finds that the notice required by the Internal Revenue Code falls within the scope of Bankruptcy Code § 362(b)(9), and that the notices are not prohibited by the automatic stay.

Section 362 permits tax assessments, but the stay against filing tax liens continues for estate property even after discharge terminates the stay for debtor property.

Pullman v. United States (In Re Pullman) · filed 2004-11-30(a)(4), (a)(5), (b)(9)(D), (c)(1), (c)(2)

While § 362(a) precludes all parties including the IRS from taking certain actions, § 362(b)(9)(D) exempts the assessment of any tax from the ambit of § 362(a). ... Of the three conditions set out in § 362(c)(2), the earliest is April 8, 2000, when the debtor received his chapter 7 discharge. Consequently, as to property of the debtor, but not as to property of the estate, the automatic stay terminated on April 8, 2000. ... Consequently, as long as property of the estate in the first case remained property of the estate through July 5, 2002, the automatic stay either imposed by the filing of a first petition or imposed by the filing of the second petition has precluded the IRS from filing a tax lien.

Section 362(b)(9) excepts the making of a tax assessment from the automatic stay.

Prater v. Copren · filed 2005-02-16(b)(9)

The BAP properly concluded that pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(9), the making of a tax assessment is an exception to the automatic stay.

For a Chapter 11 petition filed before October 22, 1994, the stay of assessment of nondischargeable employment taxes continues until the case is closed or dismissed, and an assessment made during that stay is void.

United States v. White · filed 2005-05-02(a)(6), (c)(2)

Because the employment taxes were nondisehargeable, the stay could only be lifted when the case was closed or dismissed. ... On July 4, 1994, when the government made its assessment, the stay was still in effect. Therefore, the Court finds that the government’s tax assessment under § 6672 against defendant on July 4, 1994, is void and without effect because it was made in violation of the automatic stay. ... In 1994, Congress amended § 362 to exclude the assessment of taxes from the scope of an automatic stay in bankruptcy petitions filed on or after October 22, 1994. Defendant filed his bankruptcy petition before this amendment.

The automatic stay does not bar assessment of an income tax liability that arises after the bankruptcy case begins.

Parker v. Comm'r · filed 2006-03-15(a)(6)

Because the liability for the 1994 income tax arose after the commencement of the case in bankruptcy, the assessment of that tax was not subject to the bankruptcy stay. The Court finds the bankruptcy stay did not bar the assessment of petitioner’s 1994 income tax liability.

Section 362(b)(9)(D) excepts IRS tax assessments from the automatic stay, permitting assessment of a tax penalty after a bankruptcy petition is filed.

Four Rivers Investments, Inc. v. United States · filed 2007-07-27(b)(9)(D)

Thus, the version of the Bankruptcy Code in effect in 1996 permitted the IRS tax assessment at issue here, even if it occurred, as alleged by plaintiff, in December 1996, after the Seidels’ bankruptcy filing.

Section 362(b)(9)(D) exempts assessments of responsible-person liability under 26 U.S.C. § 6672 from the automatic stay because that liability is a tax.

Looney v. United States · filed 2008-02-26(b)(9)(D)

Because liability under § 6672 is properly viewed as a tax, the challenged assessment qualifies as “an assessment for any tax” expressly exempted from the automatic stay in bankruptcy.

Section 362(b)(9)(D) exempts assessment of liability under 26 U.S.C. § 6672 from the automatic stay because that liability is a tax in substance.

Looney v. United States · filed 2009-06-25(b)(9)(D)

Therefore, the liability imposed pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6672 is exempted from the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(9)(D) (“an assessment for any tax”).

Section 362(b)(9)(D) excepts postpetition tax assessments from the automatic stay.

Gordon v. United States (In Re Sissine) · filed 2010-05-27(b)(9)(D)

IRS committed no stay violation in its postpetition assessment of TFRP liabilities because § 362(b)(9)(D) explicitly excepts such an assessment from the automatic stay.

Section 362(a)(6) bars postpetition assessments of prepetition tax claims, and assessments made in violation of the stay are void.

In Re Fasgo, Inc. · filed 1986-02-26(a)(6)

Under the quoted statutory material it is clear that § 362(a)(6) bars any act to collect, assess or recover a prepetition claim against the debtor while § 362(b)(9) allows a governmental unit to issue postpetition a “notice of tax deficiency.” ... On this basis, as well as the definition of the term “assess” quoted above, we hold that the mailing of the instrument in question effected postpetition tax assessment against the debtor and as such the assessments are void.

Section 362(b)(9)(D) permits a governmental unit to assess taxes and issue a notice and demand for payment without violating the automatic stay.

Wcislak v. City of Perrysburg (In Re Wcislak) · filed 2010-10-18(b)(9)(D)

With no arguments being offered to the contrary, the Court can only conclude that these statements are excluded by § 362(b)(9) from the protections of the automatic stay.

Section 362(k) sets no limitations period for claims seeking damages for violations of the automatic stay.

In re Breul · filed 2015-07-10(k)

In fact, Congress did not establish any limitations period for damage claims under § 362(k).

Section 362(h) has no express limitations period, but a claim against the United States for a stay violation must be filed within six years of accrual under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a).

Climer v. United States · filed 1998-12-22(h)

Although section 362(h) has no express statute of limitations, section 2401 permits suit against the United States only within six years from the date a right of action first accrues.

A § 362(h) damages claim based on an alleged beneficial interest in a New Jersey partnership is subject to a six-year New Jersey limitations period.

In Re Bernheim Litigation · filed 2003-02-28(h)

Based on the character of Bernheim’s claims, the Court concludes that the six-year New Jersey limitations period is the most appropriate statute to apply to the section 362(h) claim.

Section 362 does not bar a counterclaim against a debtor in the same bankruptcy proceeding in which the debtor sued the counterclaimant.

Pereira v. Urthbox Inc. · filed 2023-08-28

First, the Court finds no merit to the Trustee’s contention that Urthbox ran afoul of the automatic stay in asserting the Counterclaim. “Clearly, . . . counterclaims asserted against the debtor in the same bankruptcy proceeding in which the debtor initiated the action against the counterclaimants are not violative of the automatic stay, although they would be if asserted in ... another proceeding.”

The automatic stay prevents defendants from pursuing counterclaims and claims for costs against a debtor even if the debtor attempts to advance his own civil action.

Reuben C. Setliff, III, M.D., P.C. v. Stewart · filed 2005-03-23

Further, even if Setliff attempted to advance his case, Akins and Stewart would have been unable to defend and bring their counterclaims and claims for costs against Setliff.

Section 362(a)(1) stays counterclaims and third-party claims for damages against a debtor, while the debtor’s own declaratory judgment claim is not on its face an action against the debtor.

E3 Biofules Mead, LLC v. Qa3 Financial Corp. · filed 2008-02-21(a)(1)

On its face, however, Biofuels’ claim for declaratory judgment is not an action “against” the debtor under Section 362(a)(1). ... As noted, the automatic stay bars litigation on the counterclaims and third-party claims against Biofuels, and the Court finds that all other proceedings in the case should be stayed as well.

Section 362 stays claims against a Chapter 7 debtor, so the court does not address those claims while the stay applies.

Stone v. Atherton (In Re Stone) · filed 2009-10-30

This Memorandum-Opinion does not address claims against Integrity which are stayed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362(a) stays claims against a party covered by the automatic stay.

In Re Security Capital Assurance, Ltd. Securities Litigation · filed 2010-03-31(a)

Claims against Lehman are subject to the automatic stay provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), as indicated in the Notice of Automatic Stay of Claims against Lehman filed in this matter on October 1, 2008.

Section 362(a)(1) stays counterclaims seeking affirmative relief against a debtor even when the creditor may answer a lawsuit the debtor filed.

Copeland v. Kandi (In Re Copeland) · filed 2010-08-16(a)(1)

Thus, although defendants’ answer to debtor’s state court complaint did not violate the stay, the filing of the counterclaims in state court did. The counterclaims sought affirmative relief for alleged breach of contract, tortious interference with business relationships, and trespass.

Section 362(a) bars continuation of an appeal against a debtor while the automatic stay remains in force.

Rosenberger v. Homecomings Financial, LLC F/K/A Homecomings Financial Network, Inc. Litton Loan Servicing, L.P. A · filed 2014-02-06(a)

Until further order of the bankruptcy court, the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) serves as an absolute bar to the continuation of this appeal against the debtor.

Section 362(a) stays an appeal against a debtor who was the defendant below, but generally does not stay an appeal involving a debtor who was the plaintiff below.

Elite ER PLLC and Ronald A. Charles v. Page Southerland Page LLP · filed 2014-03-25(a)

Generally, if the debtor was the plaintiff in the court below, the stay does not apply; however, if the debtor was the defendant, as was the case here, any further action is stayed.

The automatic stay can reach a collection counterclaim against the bankruptcy estate even when the creditor calls it an affirmative defense in litigation initiated by the debtors.

Rentas v. Serrano (In re Garcia) · filed 2016-05-02(a)

The court further finds that Defendants’ argument that the complaint in this adversary proceeding should be dismissed because they were bringing affirmative defenses in the state probate court case and as such, does not constitute a violation of the automatic stay lacks merit as the allegations in the complaint and uncontested facts show that the Defendants’ counterclaim is a collection action against the estate.

Section 362(a) stays the continuation of an appeal against debtors on a claim that arose before their bankruptcy filing.

John Muenchen, Jr. v. Been · filed 2017-11-27(a)

However, the automatic stay provisions of 11 USC § 362 (a) appear to apply to this appeal inasmuch as “[t]he 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.” Id. at 884.

Section 362 automatically stays pending claims against a debtor after it files for bankruptcy.

Rockwell Capital Partners, Inc. v. CD Int'l Enters., Inc. · filed 2018-04-27

By operation of the automatic stay, none of Rockwell's remaining claims may proceed against CDII.

Section 362(a)(1) stays counterclaims against a debtor in bankruptcy unless the bankruptcy court permits them; actions taken in violation of the stay are void.

Hammer v. Lea C. Noelke, Judith E. Bryant, and Noelke, English, Maples, St. Leger, Blair, LLP · filed 2018-11-29(a)(1)

Counterclaims asserted against a debtor in bankruptcy without permission of the bankruptcy court are violations of the automatic stay and are void.

Section 362’s automatic stay prevents entry of a default judgment against a defendant who has filed for bankruptcy.

BMO Harris Bank N.A. v. Mid-Ark Utilities & Rig Services, Inc. · filed 2019-09-03

Pursuant to the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362, the Court denies without prejudice BHB’s motion for a default judgment against Mr. Penney (Dkt. No. 20).

Section 362 automatically stays claims against an entity that is in bankruptcy.

Menius v. Gaston County Department of Social Services · filed 2021-04-01

The BSA is in bankruptcy in Delaware, and any claim against that entity is automatically stayed pursuant to 11 USC § 362.

Section 362 stays claims against an individual debtor who has filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition.

Pharmacy Corporation of America v. Concord Healthcare Group, LLC · filed 2021-05-28

Accordingly, any claim asserted against him in his individual capacity is stayed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays counterclaims against a debtor, even when the debtor initiated the lawsuit.

Mishiyev v. Cierra · filed 2021-12-01(a)(1)

Because Mishiyev has filed for bankruptcy, the counterclaims asserted against him were automatically stayed under § 362(a).

Section 362 stays claims against a defendant subject to the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay.

Ayers v. Commissioner Perry Phelps · filed 2022-08-31

Pursuant to section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Connections Community Support Programs, Inc. are stayed.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays claims against a debtor who has filed a bankruptcy petition.

LOBSTER 207 LLC v. PETTEGROW · filed 2024-04-10(a)(1)

The automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code automatically stays this proceeding insofar as any claim against Debtor is concerned.

Section 362(a)(1) stays counterclaims against a debtor even when the debtor brought the original claims.

Perez v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC · filed 2024-10-10(a)(1)

The Court ORDERS that, because Defendants’ counterclaims 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 Section 362’s automatic stay is lifted or otherwise is no longer in effect and that all pending, unexpired deadlines are terminated.

Section 362(a) automatically stays claims against a debtor while its bankruptcy case is pending.

Solis v. No. 1 Chinese Restaurant Broadway, Inc. · filed 2024-12-02(a)

In light of that proceeding, plaintiff’s claims against AZ 400 are automatically stayed.

Section 362 requires bankruptcy court relief from the automatic stay before a creditor may assert a counterclaim or setoff against the debtor in arbitration.

JSmith Civil, LLC v. Fourth Elm Construction, LLC · filed 2025-06-30

Unlike in an adversary proceeding, Fourth Elm cannot file a counterclaim or assert it is entitled to invoke the setoff provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 553 in arbitration without the bankruptcy court first allowing relief from the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362 stays the continuation or enforcement of claims against a bankruptcy debtor.

Brifen USA Inc v. Briggs Brothers Enterprises Corporation · filed 2025-08-29

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362, the automatic-stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code extend to the bankruptcy “debtor.” Accordingly, the pending Motion for Damages (Doc. No. 84) and any other continuation or enforcement of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Briggs are STAYED.

Section 362(a) stays an appeal when the original action was brought against the debtor, even if the debtor filed the appeal.

American Precision Vibrator Co. v. National Air Vibrator Co. · filed 1989-06-14(a)

Here, the action was filed by appellee for garnishment of appellant’s funds to satisfy a prior judgment. The appeal is therefore considered to be “against the debtor” and is stayed. This is so even though it is the debtor who may be appealing an adverse lower court judgment.

Section 362(a)(1) stays a creditor’s counterclaims against a debtor, even when the debtor initiated the underlying proceeding.

Gullett v. Continental Casualty Co. (In Re Gullett) · filed 1999-01-06(a)(1)

This Court finds that CCC’s appeal with notice of the bankruptcy of the CCH opinion to the appeals panel on November 20, 1997, CCC’s original petition filed in state court on February 17, 1998, CCC’s first amended petition filed June 2, 1998, and CCC’s second amended petition filed July 7, 1998, all violated the automatic stay by asserting counterclaims alleging relief such as fraud, claims for reimbursement, and attorneys fees.

Section 362(a)(1) stays an appeal involving a counterclaim against a debtor even when the debtor brought the original lawsuit.

Robert Tyer and Associates, Inc. v. Environmental Dynamics, Inc. · filed 1995-07-14(a)(1)

Similarly, EDI's counterclaim against Tyer is an "action or proceeding against the debtor." Indeed, Tyer has a monetary judgment entered against it. Thus, it is clear that part of the appeal must be stayed.

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

Rucker v. Great Dane Petroleum Contractors, Inc. · filed 2021-08-16(a)(1)

Because Plaintiff has filed for bankruptcy, the counterclaims asserted against her were automatically stayed under § 362(a). As a creditor, Defendant may seek relief from the automatic stay in the bankruptcy court. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(d). The automatic stay does not apply to Plaintiff’s claims, which will proceed.

Section 362(a)(1) stays counterclaims against a debtor plaintiff but does not stay the debtor’s own claims.

OPTIO RX LLC v. CRESTVIEW CITY PHARMACY INC · filed 2024-06-18(a)(1)

Thus, the counterclaims against Plaintiffs Optio Rx, LLC and Crestview Pharmacy, LLC, are automatically stayed.

Section 362(a)(1) can prohibit harassing calls to a debtor’s nondebtor spouse that are designed to coerce the debtor to repay a debt.

Nelson v. Providian National Bank (In Re Nelson) · filed 1999-01-20(a)(1)

It is clearly a specious argument that harassing telephone calls made to a nondebt- or spouse are not designed to coerce a consumer debtor to repay a discharged debt which is prohibited under Section 362(a)(1).

Section 362 does not require relief from the automatic stay for a QDRO affecting an ERISA-qualified pension plan excluded from the bankruptcy estate.

Walker v. Walker · filed 1999-02-23

Appellant’s Railroad Pension Plan is qualified for protection under ERISA. As such, Respondent was not required to obtain relief from the automatic stay provision because the QDRO did not affect the subject matter of Appellant’s pending bankruptcy.

Section 362(a)(3) stays a state vehicle-forfeiture proceeding that seeks possession of estate property, and § 362(b)(4) does not permit that proceeding without relief from the stay.

Finley v. Mississippi Department of Public Safety (In Re Finley) · filed 1999-03-11(a)(3), (b)(4)

Relying on the Thomas analysis, this court concludes that the forfeiture proceeding is an act to obtain possession of property of this bankruptcy estate which is stayed automatically by § 362(a)(3). Revised subsection 362(b)(4) does not provide an exception permitting the Department to commence the forfeiture proceeding without first obtaining relief from the stay.

Section 362(b)(4) excepts a government civil drug-forfeiture action against estate property from the automatic stay when the action exercises police or regulatory power.

Unites States v. Klein (In Re Chapman) · filed 2001-07-12(b)(4)

Applying this interpretation of § 362(b)(4) to the Action, the government is not subject to the stay in proceeding against the Property to obtain a forfeiture judgment.

Section 362(a)(6) can reach a truthful credit bureau report made to harass or coerce a debtor into paying a prepetition debt.

Singley v. American General Finance (In Re Singley) · filed 1999-05-03(a)(6)

Turning to the motion before the Court now, even if it is true that Movant’s report to the credit bureau contains truthful information that is a matter of public record, such a report, if made with the intent to harass or coerce a debtor and/or co-debtor into paying a pre-petition debt, could violate the automatic stays of sections 362 and/or 1301.

Section 362(a)(6) does not prohibit legally required negative-credit notices that merely convey information without demanding payment or coercing the debtor, even when accompanied by lawful lien retention.

Brooks v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. (In Re Brooks) · filed 2006-04-10(a)(6)

The language in the notices sent by GMAC is not, in and of itself, harassing or coercive. There is no demand for payment. ... Moreover, they were sent pursuant to federal law, under a scheme designed to protect consumers by letting them know when negative reports are made to credit reporting agencies. Accordingly, and taken together with my earlier conclusion that GMAC’s lien retention was lawful, I cannot conclude that issuing the notices violated either § 362(a) or § 1301(a).

Section 362(k)(1) treats a collection agency’s transmission of a prepetition account to credit reporting agencies as a willful stay violation when the agency knows of the bankruptcy, even if its computer system sends the report.

In re Hill · filed 2014-12-04(k)(1)

NWC’s actions on May 15, 2014, were willful violations of the stay because its computer system sent Hill’s account to the CRAs with knowledge of her bankruptcy.

Section 362(a)(6) does not prohibit a creditor from truthfully reporting a debtor’s outstanding balance to credit agencies after the petition and before discharge, absent further evidence of an attempt to collect the debt.

In re Porcoro · filed 2017-03-28(a)(6)

Based on the foregoing, this Court, finds that Verizon’s truthful reporting of the Debtor’s outstanding balance amount to credit reporting agencies post-petition— but pre-discharge — did not violate the automatic stay.

Section 362(a)(6) does not make postpetition credit reporting of overdue or delinquent payments, standing alone, a per se violation of the automatic stay.

Keller v. New Penn Financial, LLC (In Re Keller) · filed 2017-05-26(a)(6)

Accordingly, we hold that the act of postpetition credit reporting of overdue or delinquent payments while a bankruptcy case is pending is not a per se violation of § 362(a)(6).

Section 362(a)(6) does not make postpetition reporting of overdue or delinquent payments to credit reporting agencies a per se violation of the automatic stay.

In re: Robert C. Keller and Finley Jones Keller · filed 2017-05-26(a)(6)

Accordingly, we hold that the act of postpetition credit reporting of overdue or delinquent payments while a bankruptcy case is pending is not a per se violation of § 362(a)(6).

Section 362(a) does not prohibit a creditor from furnishing account information to credit reporting agencies when the reporting involves none of the actions enumerated in the automatic stay.

Barry v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. · filed 2018-07-06(a)

First, Farm Bureau’s act of furnishing information to credit reporting agencies in no way involves “a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding against” Ms. Barry. ... Given these observations, Ms. Barry has not alleged and, thus, cannot prove, that Farm Bureau has violated any subsection of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

Section 362(a) does not prohibit credit reporting by itself, but reporting may violate the automatic stay when there is evidence of additional collection activity.

Ohai v. PNC Bank National Association, Inc. · filed 2023-08-23(a)

Reporting a debt to a credit reporting agency in and of itself is not a violation of the automatic stay. ... Credit reporting may, however, violate the automatic stay where there is evidence of additional collection activity.

Section 362 stays pending proceedings against a debtor when it files a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition.

Local Union 2134, United Mine Workers v. Powhatan Fuel, Inc. · filed 1986-07-03

The court has been advised that a petition for liquidation under Chapter 7 of the United States Code concerning defendant Powhatan Fuel, Inc., has been filed under 11 U.S.C. §§ 301 et seq., in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Alabama, which petition operates as a stay of these proceedings pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362(a) automatically stays a pending case against a defendant that files for bankruptcy.

Eternix Ltd. v. CivilGEO, Inc. · filed 2025-04-23(a)

While the summary judgment motions were pending, defendant CivilGEO filed a suggestion of bankruptcy, so the case against CivilGEO is automatically stayed under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

Section 362(a) automatically stays a pending civil action when the plaintiff files a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition.

McCarley v. Stout Insurance Company, LLC · filed 2024-12-03(a)

Because McCarley filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy, this action is stayed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

Section 362(a)(1) and (3) stay a pending lawsuit as to defendants who file Chapter 11 bankruptcy petitions.

Hultman v. Mattson · filed 2024-10-21(a)(1), (3)

This proceeding is thus stayed as to those two defendants under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1), (3).

Section 362 stays proceedings against a debtor upon a bankruptcy filing, including a pending motion to dismiss against the debtor.

Robb v. Robb Jr. · filed 2024-10-23

Therefore, before my decision could be docketed, all proceedings against George were stayed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362. In light of the automatic stay, I recalled the original decision and excised those portions that dispose of George’s motion on the merits.

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

Simon v. 99 Cents Only Stores, LLC · filed 2024-07-25(a)

Accordingly, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case is automatically STAYED due to 99 Cents Only Stores, LLC’s bankruptcy proceedings.

Section 362(a) stays a pending action against a defendant who files for bankruptcy while the bankruptcy case proceeds.

Whitehead v. Yelen Entertainment LLC · filed 2024-08-05(a)

I have stayed the instant case as to her in light of that filing. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

Section 362(a) automatically halts the continuation of claims against a debtor upon its bankruptcy filing until the stay is lifted.

Mathis v. McInnis · filed 2024-04-29(a)

Corizon’s bankruptcy filing operates as an automatic stay as to the claims against it.

Section 362 automatically stays a civil action against a Chapter 11 debtor when the bankruptcy petition is filed, requiring pending motions to await the lifting of the stay.

Escobar-Rivera v. 99 Cents Only Stores, LLC · filed 2024-04-16(a)

“The automatic stay is self-executing, effective upon the filing of the bankruptcy petition.” Burton v. Infinity Capital Mgmt., 862 F.3d 740, 746 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)). “It applies to almost any type of formal or informal action against the debtor or property of the estate.” Id. at 746–47 (quotation omitted). When chapter 11 relief is sought, the automatic stay of judicial actions against the bankrupt party expires at “the time [that] a discharge is granted or denied.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(A)–(C). Accordingly, I dismiss plaintiff Maria Antonieta Escobar-Rivera’s motion to strike and 99 Cents Only Stores’ motion for summary judgment without prejudice to the parties’ ability to re-file the motions when the stay is lifted.

Section 362 automatically stays a pending case against a defendant when a bankruptcy petition is filed against that defendant.

Palm Street Capital LLC v. Xie · filed 2024-04-02(a)(1)

In accordance with 11 U.S.C. § 362, this case was automatically stayed as a result of the bankruptcy case petition filed against defendant Xie.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays a pending appeal of a claim against a debtor while the debtor’s bankruptcy petition remains pending.

Cramton v. Grabbagreen Franchising LLC · filed 2023-08-08(a)(1)

Because that bankruptcy petition is still pending, the appeal of this issue was stayed automatically on January 6, 2023 pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1).

A court may administratively close a case against a debtor while the automatic stay remains in effect, pending notice that the stay has been lifted.

Weddington v. Tehun Care Services, Inc. · filed 2023-06-30

The Court administratively closes the case as to Corizon, pending notice from Weddington or Corizon that the automatic stay has been lifted.

Section 362(a) prevents a court from ruling on a pending motion for judgment on the pleadings against a debtor while the automatic stay is in place.

Utah Chips Company v. Birch Farms · filed 2023-07-17(a)

The court cannot rule on the motion for judgment on the pleadings while the stay is in place.

Section 362(a) automatically stays a pending appeal affected by a party’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy, requiring the appeal to be abated.

Skyler Williams, Derivatively on Behalf of Blackland Construction, Inc. v. James G. Miller Abrielle O. Miller And Blackl · filed 2023-05-26(a)

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), this appeal was ... automatically stayed; thus, we ordered the appeal abated and for it to be removed from the Court’s docket.

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

Industrial Screw Conveyors, Inc. v. Castillo · filed 2023-03-08

Appellant Industrial Screw Conveyors, Inc., has notified this Court that it filed a bankruptcy proceeding on February 7, 2023. See TEX. R. APP. P. 8.1. Further action in this appeal has been automatically stayed. See 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362(a)(1) stays proceedings against a debtor after a bankruptcy filing and prevents a court from ruling on a default judgment motion against that debtor while the stay applies.

Li v. Prodigy Network LLC · filed 2021-05-21(a)(1)

In the face of the automatic stay, the court lacks authority to rule on the motion for a default judgment as to Prodigy Network LLC.

Section 362(a)(1) stays further litigation against a defendant who has filed a Chapter 7 petition, requiring the court to close the case against that defendant while the bankruptcy proceedings remain unresolved.

IBEW Local 494 v. Coates Electric LLC · filed 2021-03-22(a)(1)

This case may not proceed against Brody Coates; the parties have briefed summary judgment in the adversary proceeding and until it is resolved, the automatic stay prevents further litigation in this court. The court will administratively close the case as to Brody Coates as is required by 11 U.S.C. §362 pending the termination of his adversary bankruptcy proceedings in In re Coates, 19-2210-kmp (Bankr. E.D. Wis.).

Section 362 automatically stays further action in a pending appeal when the appellant files for Chapter 13 bankruptcy.

McKeough v. Camelot Townhomes Association, Inc. · filed 2021-04-07

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

Section 362(a)(1) stays pending judicial proceedings against a debtor upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition.

GEM Razorback, LLC v. Oasis Petroleum North America LLC · filed 2020-10-02(a)(1)

Section 362(a)(1) provides that, upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition, all judicial and other proceedings are stayed. ... Consequently, this matter is STAYED pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362(a)(1) stays judicial proceedings upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition.

First International Bank & Trust v. Oasis Petroleum North America, LLC · filed 2020-10-02(a)(1)

Section 362(a)(1) provides that, upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition, all judicial and other proceedings are stayed.

Section 362(a)(1) stays judicial proceedings upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition.

Ceynar v. Oasis Petroleum North America LLC · filed 2020-10-14(a)(1)

Section 362(a)(1) provides that, upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition, all judicial and other proceedings are stayed. ... Consequently, this matter is STAYED pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362 automatically stays litigation against a defendant following that defendant’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy filing.

Andreozzi v. Synrgy Health and Fitness, LLC · filed 2020-09-21

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §362, this case is automatically stayed as to Defendant Deborah Owen following her Chapter 13 bankruptcy filing.

Section 362 stays claims against a debtor who has filed for bankruptcy while the bankruptcy petition is pending.

Aegis Security Insurance Company v. M.E. Smith, Inc. · filed 2019-08-28

M.E. Smith has filed for bankruptcy and the claims against it are consequently stayed pending resolution its bankruptcy petition.

Section 362 automatically stays pending claims against defendants who file a voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition.

Clemons v. WPRJ, LLC · filed 2013-01-28

Thus all Plaintiffs’ claims against the Kerseg Defendants are stayed.

Section 362(a)(1) stays prepetition civil litigation against a debtor when the debtor files a bankruptcy petition.

Chester v. Parker (In Re Parker) · filed 2002-09-03(a)(1)

In fact, the Code contemplates such circumstances by expressly providing that the litigation is stayed upon the filing of the bankruptcy case. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1).

Section 362(a)(1) bars issuance of a postpetition administrative decision in a proceeding against the debtor even when the decision rests entirely on a prepetition record.

In Re Best Payphones, Inc. · filed 2002-06-24(a)(1)

The ECB Decision was issued post-petition through no fault of the ALJ or DoITT, neither of whom were advised of the bankruptcy filing. Nevertheless, the issuance of the ECB Decision violated the automatic stay, even though it was based entirely on the prepetition record.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays proceedings against a party that has filed for bankruptcy, making consolidation of that party’s stayed case improper.

Dumas v. Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. · filed 1999-05-14(a)(1)

Second, as Pinnacle Brands has filed for bankruptcy, any action in that case is automatically stayed.

Section 362(a)(1) prohibits requesting a default judgment in a pending judicial proceeding against a debtor after the debtor files for bankruptcy.

Bass v. Fillion · filed 1999-06-28(a)(1)

This constituted a continuation of a judicial proceeding against the debtors, and is prohibited by § 362(a)(1).

Section 362(a)(1) prohibits a creditor from requesting a default judgment against debtors in a pending judicial proceeding after they file for bankruptcy.

Bass v. Fillion (In re Fillion) · filed 1999-06-28(a)(1)

This constituted a continuation of a judicial proceeding against the debtors, and is prohibited by sec. 362(a)(1).

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays continuation of a pending suit against a debtor after its bankruptcy petition, so the district court defers final judgment until the stay is lifted.

Terry v. Clinton Health & Rehab Center · filed 2000-08-30(a)(1)

This court is fully aware that a bankruptcy petition triggers an automatic stay pursuant to Title 11 U.S.C. § 362. ... Should no party offer an objection on this ground, once the automatic stay is lifted, this court will re-affirm the conclusions and reasoning herein, and then enter a final judgment.

Section 362(a)(4) stays the filing of a levy notice and advertising of property for sale while a bankruptcy is pending.

McKeen v. Federal Deposit Insurance · filed 2001-07-02(a)(4)

Filing a notice of levy and advertising the property for sale are actions that are clearly stayed during the pendency of a bankruptcy.

Section 362 stays the operation of CPLR 3404 while a defendant’s bankruptcy proceeding is pending.

LDV Enterprises, Inc. v. Puma · filed 2001-07-30

In any event, the operation of CPLR 3404 was stayed pending the resolution of a bankruptcy proceeding involving the defendant Philip Puma, which was commenced in 1990 and was pending in 1995 when this action was allegedly dismissed (see, 11 USC § 362; Klein v Rauschman, 67 AD2d 902).

Section 362(a)(1) stays a creditor’s removal of a pending prepetition lawsuit against the debtor when the claim is subject to the automatic stay.

In Re Hoskins · filed 2001-09-26(a)(1)

The foregoing authorities teach us that actions stayed by a bankruptcy filing include removing a pending state court lawsuit to the bankruptcy court if the claim or cause of action is subject to the automatic stay.

Section 362(a) bars continued state court collection proceedings while the automatic stay is in effect.

In Re Varrone · filed 2001-11-16(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(6)

Since the Respondent's State Court Proceedings were pending for three days prior to the Discharge Order, and 12 days prior to the closing of the bankruptcy case, she was also in violation of the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay provisions.

Section 362(a)(1) prevents a court from deciding a pending case against a Chapter 11 debtor until the bankruptcy court grants relief from the stay or the stay lapses.

Johnson v. K Mart Corporation · filed 2002-02-14(a)(1)

In view of Kmart Corporation’s filing of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition, and in compliance with 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1), no decision will be rendered in this case until the bankruptcy court grants relief from the automatic stay or the stay lapses.

The automatic stay prevents a state court from trying a claim against a debtor until the bankruptcy court lifts it, but the state court may stay the action while the claimant seeks relief from the stay.

Boone v. Bill's Dollar Stores, Inc. · filed 2002-02-15(d)

Certainly, the trial court could not have proceeded with the trial of this case without a judgment of the bankruptcy court lifting the automatic stay, see 11 U.S.C. § 362(d); however, the trial court should have simply stayed the matter for a time sufficient to allow Boone, if she so chose, to seek relief from the automatic stay or to seek an alternative method of pursuing her claims against Bill’s.

Section 362(a) automatically stays proceedings against a debtor upon its Chapter 11 filing.

In Re Sprint Corp. Securities Litigation · filed 2002-09-30(a)

As a result, pursuant to § 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, this proceeding against WorldCom is automatically stayed.

Section 362(a)(1) stays claims against a bankrupt employer and its employee benefit plan upon the employer’s bankruptcy filing.

McLeod v. Hartford Life and Accident Ins. Co. · filed 2003-02-27(a)(1)

The petition for bankruptcy, filed on November 20, 2001, operates as a stay on Plaintiff's claims against Valley Media, Inc. and the Plan itself.

Section 362 stays a debtor’s pending appeal while the bankruptcy stay remains in place.

Mayville v. State · filed 2008-11-19

Accordingly, his appeal is stayed. See 11 U.S.C. § 362; Tex. R. App. P. 8.2 (“A bankruptcy suspends the appeal and all periods in these rules from the date when the bankruptcy petition is filed until the appellate court reinstates or severs the appeal in accordance with federal law.”). During the bankruptcy stay, all deadlines and processes in this Court are suspended, and upon reinstatement, time lines will begin to run anew from the date of reinstatement.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays the continuation of a judicial action against a debtor when the debtor files a bankruptcy petition, including on appeal.

Tam Travel, Inc. v. Delta Airlines, Inc. (In Re Travel Agent Commission Antitrust Litigation) · filed 2009-10-02(a)(1)

After the parties filed their appellate briefs, we were notified that Frontier and ATA filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). The filing of a bankruptcy petition operates as an automatic stay of the continuation of a judicial action against the debtor. Spirit Airlines, Inc. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 431 F.3d 917, 921 n. 1 (6th Cir. 2005) (automatic stay under § 362(a)(1) applies to appellate proceedings).

Section 362 automatically stays a pending action against a defendant when that defendant files for bankruptcy.

Goodwin v. Executive Trustee Services, LLC · filed 2010-01-08

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362, the commencement of TB & W’s bankruptcy case operates as an automatic stay of all actions or proceedings, including this action, against TB & W.

Section 362’s automatic stay prevents disposition of an appeal as to a party while the stay remains in place.

Longi v. State of New York · filed 2010-01-26

Because an automatic bankruptcy stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 remains in place as to Monaco Coach Corporation, this order does not constitute a ruling as to the disposition of the appeal as to that appellee.

Section 362(c) stays claims against a debtor while bankruptcy proceedings remain pending, unless the bankruptcy court lifts the stay.

Baker & Taylor, Inc. v. AlphaCraze. Com Corp. · filed 2010-04-28(c)

The district court may proceed to adjudicate the claims of Baker & Taylor against the Sheltons when their bankruptcy proceeding has been concluded or when the bankruptcy court has lifted the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 362(c).

Section 362’s automatic stay can halt a pending appeal when a party files for bankruptcy protection.

NNN Met Center 10-1, LLC v. BACM 2005-3 Met Center Office · filed 2011-11-17

We previously abated this appeal because, as a result of NNN Met Center 10-25’s filing for bankruptcy protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California, this suit has been automatically stayed.

Section 362 automatically stays further action in a pending appeal when a party’s bankruptcy filing triggers the stay.

in the Estate of Florene K. Grace · filed 2011-12-21

Further action in this appeal has been automatically stayed. See 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362(a)(1) does not treat a proceeding decided before bankruptcy as continuing merely because its order remains in effect.

Beste v. Lewin · filed 2012-11-20(a)(1)

First, once a decision has been rendered, it is no longer a continuing proceeding for the purposes of section 362(a).

Section 362 stays further action in an appeal while an applicable bankruptcy matter remains pending.

in the Interest of J. S., a Child · filed 2013-04-24

However, being that the bankruptcy is apparently still pending, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. sec 362, the Court automatically stays any further action in this appeal.

Section 362 automatically stays further action in a pending appeal when a party files for bankruptcy.

Beatriz Pangilinan and Careworks Home Health Sevices, Inc. v. Narcissa Viterbo Bardeloza, Eduardo Bardeloza · filed 2013-05-07

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

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

Eduardo Wilkinson, M.D. P.A. and Individially v. Richardson Hospital Authority · filed 2013-08-07

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

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

High Rev Power, L.L.C. v. Massimo Motor Sports, LLC, and Freeport Logistics, Inc. · filed 2013-11-01

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

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

TXU Portfolio Management Company, L.P. N/K/A Luninant Energy Company, L.L.C. v. FPL Enery, LLC FPL Energy Pecos Wind I, · filed 2014-05-28

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

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

Grapevine Diamond, L.P. and Jonathan Aflatouni v. City Bank · filed 2014-07-14

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

Section 362 automatically stays further action in a pending case after a party files a bankruptcy petition until the bankruptcy court lifts the stay.

Parson v. US Bank National Association · filed 2015-01-28

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362 further action in this cause is automatically stayed until further order of the bankruptcy court.