11 U.S.C. § 362

Section 362’s automatic stay does not protect asbestos bankruptcy trusts created after the Chapter 11 debtors obtained a discharge.

Roverano, W., Aplts. v. Crane · filed 2020-02-19

Because the bankruptcy trusts involved in this case are the result of Chapter 11 debtors obtaining a discharge in bankruptcy, Ottavio and Ball do not control this case. ... In this case, the bankruptcy trusts are not protected by the automatic stay.

Section 362's automatic stay does not protect bankruptcy trusts formed after Chapter 11 debtors obtain a discharge.

Roverano, W., Aplt. v. John Crane, Inc. · filed 2020-02-19

In this case, the bankruptcy trusts are not protected by the automatic stay.

The automatic stay takes effect upon a bankruptcy filing without a separate district court order and continues until the bankruptcy case is dismissed.

United States v. Engen · filed 2020-03-26(c)(2)(B)

The Court also notes that the automatic bankruptcy stay operates separately of an order of this Court. Upon filing, Engen’s petition “operates as a stay” and “continues until . . . the case is dismissed.”

The automatic stay ends when the debtor receives a discharge, making a later request for relief from the stay moot.

Kenneth Schwartz and Valerie Schwartz · filed 2020-06-12(c)(2)(C)

The automatic stay was no longer in effect in January of 2015 when the Order Staying was entered and so the motion for relief from stay was moot; the stay was no longer in effect after the Court issued the Discharge Order on October 25, 2013, 11 U.S.C. §362(c)(2)(C).

Section 362(c)(2) ends the automatic stay as to property of the debtor at the earliest of case closure, case dismissal, or bankruptcy discharge.

Citimortgage, Inc. v. Corte Madera Homeowners Ass'n. · filed 2020-06-19(c)(2)

If the Danborough Court property was property of the debtor, the stay lifted on the earliest of the case closure, case dismissal, or bankruptcy discharge. See § 362(c)(2). Of those three dates, the earliest was the bankruptcy discharge on May 30, 2012, before Corte Madera filed any of its foreclosure-related notices. Under this scenario, the notices would not have violated the stay.

Section 362(c)(2) protects a debtor against willful violations of the automatic stay even if the debtor engaged in misconduct that might justify denying or revoking a discharge.

Luann Mitchell · filed 2020-07-29(c)(2)

In other words, the automatic stay even protects debtors who ultimately have their discharges denied. Whether the debtor committed misconduct that might justify denial or revocation of her discharge is irrelevant to the debtor’s right to recover for willful violations of the automatic stay.

The automatic stay ends when a Chapter 7 debtor receives a discharge, so later acts cannot violate it.

Smith v. Murphy · filed 2021-03-18(c)(2)(C)

The automatic stay expired in June 2016, when the Smiths’ Chapter 7 debt was discharged. Thus, no automatic stay was in effect (or could be violated) at the time of the complained-of acts in February 2017 and May 2017.

For an individual Chapter 7 debtor, the automatic stay ends when a discharge is granted, so later acts do not violate the stay.

BAREL v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION · filed 2021-03-30(c)(2)(C)

Barel being an individual under Chapter 7, is subject to subsection (C). The complained of conduct by Barel occurred after the automatic stay was no longer in effect and its protections lifted.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) keeps the automatic stay in effect if a Chapter 7 case is converted to Chapter 13 before a Chapter 7 discharge enters.

Louis Roman · filed 2021-06-16(c)(2)(C)

If the case is converted to Chapter 13 before a Chapter 7 discharge enters, the automatic stay would remain in effect.

Section 362(c)(2) keeps claims against a Chapter 7 debtor stayed until the bankruptcy case concludes.

(PS)Thacker v. AT&T Mobility, LLC · filed 2021-07-09(c)(2)

Accordingly, plaintiff will not be able to proceed with his claims against DCI until the Bankruptcy Case concludes.

Section 362(c)(2) continues a Chapter 13 automatic stay until the earliest of case closure, dismissal, or grant or denial of discharge.

Billie J. And Curtis R. Harris, Appellant's V. Deutsche Bank · filed 2022-04-25(c)(2)

Furthermore, the Harrises rely on a provision in the Bankruptcy Code stating that the automatic stay “continues until the earliest of . . . (A) the time the case is closed; (B) the time the case is dismissed; or (C) if the case is . . . a [Chapter 13] case . . . , the time a discharge is granted or denied.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2). Here, the earliest of these dates is July 26, 2012, the date the bankruptcy court granted the Harrises a discharge in the second bankruptcy.

Section 362(c)(1) ends the stay against estate property when that property leaves the estate, but does not end the separate stays against the debtor or property that returns to the debtor.

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Lubonty · filed 2022-07-06(c)(1)

Consequently, the termination of the stay of an act against "property of the estate" provided for by 11 USC § 362(c)(1) has no bearing on the stays established by 11 USC § 362(a)(1) and (5), which expressly apply to acts taken against "the debtor" or "property of the debtor," and which continued in effect.

Section 362(c)(2) ends the automatic stay of litigation against a debtor when the bankruptcy case is closed.

Sharond Hill v. Springfield Hospital and Emergency Services of New England, Inc. · filed 2023-04-21(c)(2)

By law, the bankruptcy court’s July 7, 2021, decision closing the bankruptcy case operated to remove the automatic stay, meaning that plaintiff was no longer precluded from pursuing her claim against Springfield. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2) (providing that automatic stay of litigation against debtor continues until bankruptcy case is closed or dismissed, or discharge is granted or denied, whichever is earliest).

Section 362(c) keeps a civil action against a debtor automatically stayed until the bankruptcy proceedings end or the stay is lifted.

Johnson 212417 v. Anderson · filed 2023-04-24(c)

Accordingly, this civil action against Corizon Health, Inc. (presently named as Corizon Health Care) is automatically stayed as to the debtor until the Bankruptcy proceedings in question are terminated or the stay is lifted.

Section 362(c) stays claims against a bankruptcy debtor until the bankruptcy proceedings terminate or the stay is lifted.

West 813767 v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2023-05-31(c)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against Corizon Health are automatically stayed as to the debtor until the bankruptcy proceedings in question are terminated or the stay is lifted. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(c).

Section 362(c) keeps claims against a bankruptcy debtor stayed until the bankruptcy proceedings end or the stay is lifted.

Dye 149800 v. Washington · filed 2023-06-27(c)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against Corizon Health are automatically stayed as to the debtor until the bankruptcy proceedings in question are terminated or the stay is lifted.

Section 362 stays a civil action as to a debtor until the bankruptcy proceedings terminate or the stay is lifted.

Trustees of the Michigan Laborers' Health Care Fund v. Superior Underground Services, LLC · filed 2023-08-31(c)

In accordance with 11 U.S.C. § 362, this civil action is automatically stayed as to the debtor(s) until the Bankruptcy proceedings in question are terminated or the stay is lifted.

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

Plaster 846864 v. Washington · filed 2023-09-12(c)

In accordance with 11 U.S.C. § 362, this civil action is automatically stayed as to the debtor until the Bankruptcy proceedings in question are terminated or the stay is lifted.

A Chapter 7 petition stays a pending foreclosure action until the bankruptcy court grants the debtor a discharge.

Board of Directors of Colonial Sq. Homeowners' Assn., Ltd. v. Signorile · filed 2023-09-20(a)(1), (c)(2)

Here, the defendant's bankruptcy petition effected an automatic stay of this foreclosure action until the issuance of the Bankruptcy Court's order granting the defendant's discharge ( see 11 USC § 362[a][1]; [c][2]; Lubonty v U.S. Bank N.A. , 159 AD3d 962, 963-964, affd 34 NY3d 250), which constituted good cause to extend the time to conduct the foreclosure sale.

Section 362(c) generally keeps civil actions against a debtor stayed until the bankruptcy proceeding ends or the stay is lifted.

Trustees of the Michigan Laborers' Health Care Fund v. Superior Underground Services, LLC · filed 2023-10-24(c)

Generally, civil actions are automatically stayed as to the debtor(s) until the Bankruptcy proceedings in question are terminated or the stay is lifted. 11 U.S.C. § 362(c).

Section 362 ends the automatic stay in a Chapter 11 case when the bankruptcy court grants a discharge.

Zurich American Insurance Company v. Scott, Murphy & Daniel, LLC · filed 2024-03-26(c)(2)

The automatic stay ended on October 26, 2022, when the bankruptcy court discharged USA through the order confirming the Chapter 11 Plan.

Section 362(c)(2) governs when the automatic stay of judicial actions against a Chapter 11 debtor expires.

Reed v. 99 Cents Only Stores LLC · filed 2024-04-16(c)(2)

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.”

Section 362(c) keeps a civil action against a bankruptcy debtor stayed until the bankruptcy proceedings end or the stay is lifted.

Grand Contracting, LLC v. M & M Contract Build, LLC · filed 2024-06-24(c)

In accordance with 11 U.S.C. § 362, this civil action is automatically stayed as to the debtor(s) until the Bankruptcy proceedings in question are terminated or the stay is lifted.

The automatic stay of an action against a debtor ends when the debtor receives a bankruptcy discharge.

Hood v. Jordan Restaurant Group HQ LLC d/b/a Hen Quarter · filed 2024-09-30(c)(2)(C)

Thus, the automatic stay as to claims against Mr. Jordan under § 362(a) has been replaced by a discharge injunction under § 524(a), and that discharge operates as an injunction against the continuation of Plaintiff’s claims against Mr. Jordan.

Section 362(c)(2) ends the automatic stay in an individual Chapter 7 case when the bankruptcy court grants a discharge.

Cupp v. Plastiras · filed 2024-11-15(c)(2)

Because the bankruptcy court granted discharge, the stay ended.

The automatic stay ends when the bankruptcy case is closed, allowing a stayed proceeding to be reinstated.

In Re Sayers Construction, LLC v. the State of Texas · filed 2024-11-22(c)(2)(A)

However, because the bankruptcy court’s records reflect the bankruptcy case’s status as “Closed,” the Court has reinstated the case. We abate the case for thirty days to allow counsel time to provide the Court with proof that the bankruptcy case has not been closed and the bankruptcy stay should remain in place.

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

Jeffries v. Herr · filed 2025-01-27(c)(2)(B)

The Bankruptcy Court committed no clear error by lifting the automatic stay after it dismissed Jeffries’ Chapter 13 case.

The automatic stay ends when the bankruptcy case is closed.

(PS) Favis v. Favis · filed 2025-05-01(c)(2)(A)

For starters, plaintiff’s bankruptcy action, Case No. 25-20501, has been closed, and the stay is no longer in place.

Under § 362(c), abandonment of estate property and a Chapter 7 discharge leave no automatic stay barring a secured creditor from proceeding against that property.

Bernard Andrew Rothman · filed 2025-05-22(c)(1), (c)(2)

Furthermore, the automatic stay would not apply to Secured Creditor because (1) the Property is no longer property of the estate and (2) the Debtor received a discharge.

Section 362(c)(1) ends the automatic stay as to estate property when that property leaves the estate.

David F. Dean and Vicki L. Dean · filed 2025-07-31(c)(1)

The automatic stay applies to an act against property of the estate only until such property is no longer property of the estate. 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(1). D&M, therefore, is free to pursue any state law rights it may have against the Property itself, or any proceeds therefrom, just as Norway Savings Bank was free to commence a foreclosure action without first seeking relief from the automatic stay.

The automatic stay ends when the bankruptcy petition is dismissed.

Candid Ventures LLC v. Nestlings, Inc. · filed 2025-09-09(c)(2)(B)

The automatic stay, however, “does not survive the dismissal of a bankruptcy petition.” ... Thus, any bankruptcy stay pertaining to this matter is lifted.

Section 362(c)(2) keeps the automatic stay in effect while the debtor’s bankruptcy case remains pending, until the case is closed or dismissed or a discharge is granted or denied.

Saleh v. Planters Bank & Trust Company Indianola, Mississippi · filed 2025-09-19(c)(2)

The stay continues until the bankruptcy case is closed or dismissed or a discharge is granted or denied. 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2). ... The automatic bankruptcy stay remains in place. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2).

Section 362(c)(2) ends the automatic stay of acts other than those against estate property when the bankruptcy case is dismissed.

Aristocrat Motor Company Inc. v. Central Bank of the Midwest · filed 2025-10-13(c)(2)

Specifically, “the stay of an act against property of the estate . . . continues until such property is no longer property of the estate,” and “the stay of any other act . . . continues until the earliest of . . . the time the case is closed . . . [or] the time the case is dismissed.”

Section 362(c) ends the automatic stay entirely when a case closes and any remaining estate property is abandoned to the debtor.

In re Dewitt L. Weary, III and Tamarra T. Weary · filed 2025-12-18(c)(1)-(2)

Here, the Court need not determine whether and to what extent the automatic stay terminated upon the effective date of confirmation because it certainly terminated when the case was first closed on April 30, 2019.

The automatic stay ceases to protect estate property once the property leaves the estate, including when a confirmed Chapter 11 plan revests it in the debtor.

Dixson · filed 2026-02-02(c)(1)

Third, Lot 1A was not transferred to Mesilla Valley until after confirmation—in other words, after the property had re-vested in the Reorganized Debtor and the stay no longer protected the property. As there was no stay in place at the time Lot 1A was transferred, the Defendants could not have violated the automatic stay.

Section 362’s automatic stay terminates when the bankruptcy court grants the debtor a discharge.

Pinkston · filed 2026-06-16(c)(2)(C)

However, the § 362 stay imposed by the Stay Relief Order terminated once the Court granted Defendants a discharge under § 727 on November 18, 2025.

Section 362(c)(2) ends the automatic stay when the bankruptcy case is closed or dismissed, or when a discharge is granted or denied, whichever occurs first.

Galanis v. Commissioner · filed 1989-01-17(c)(2)

With exceptions not relevant here, the stay continues until the earliest of the time the case is closed or dismissed, or a discharge is granted or denied.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) keeps a creditor’s collection efforts stayed during a Chapter 13 plan until discharge.

Claxton v. Student Loan Marketing Ass'n (In Re Claxton) · filed 1992-05-19(c)(2)(C)

HEAF’s collection efforts are stayed for the duration of the plan, 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(C), § 1328(a).

The automatic stay ends when a discharge is granted.

Rul-Lan v. Rul-Lan (In Re Rul-Lan) · filed 1995-09-07(c)(2)(C)

In any event, the automatic stay remains in effect only until a discharge is granted because the discharge itself voids any judgment obtained at any time.

Section 362’s automatic stay is no longer in effect after confirmation of a reorganization plan.

In re A and C Electric Company, Inc. · filed 1997-01-17

In addition, the Section 362 automatic stay is no longer in effect because the reorganization plan has been confirmed and the Trustees are no longer prohibited from suspending benefits when appropriate.

Section 362's automatic stay does not apply to judgments rendered before the bankruptcy filing or after the bankruptcy case is dismissed.

Kimes v. Simpson · filed 1998-01-08

Neither the April 13, 1996, interlocutory summary judgment nor the final judgment dated August 19, 1997, was rendered at a time when the automatic stay applied.

The automatic stay under § 362 may remain in force until a confirmed plan’s Effective Date when the confirmation order so provides.

In Re Celotex Corp. · filed 1996-12-06

82. In accordance with the Procedural Order, this Order shall be final for appeal purposes in accordance with Bankruptcy Rules 8001 through 8019, but effectiveness of this Order is stayed until such time as this Order has been issued and entered by the District Court and noted on the docket of the District Court; provided, however, that the automatic stay arising under 11 U.S.C. § 362 and all injunctions entered by the Bankruptcy Court prior to Confirmation shall remain in full force and effect until the Effective Date.

The automatic stay remains in effect under § 362(c) when the creditor's lien will survive discharge and the debtors have not defaulted.

General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Sawyer (In Re Sawyer) · filed 1982-03-29(c)

In this particular case, I conclude since it appears that the lien of the plaintiff will survive a discharge issued to defendants, unless it is to be avoided for reasons not apparent at this time under some other section of the Code, and because no default in payment of the indebtedness to plaintiff has occurred, that the stay should remain in effect until vacated under the terms of § 362(c).

Section 362's automatic stay ends by operation of law after the applicable statutory period and cannot be extended through a § 105 restraining order.

Moody v. State ex rel. DeBellis · filed 1986-03-31(e)

Furthermore, the § 105 restraining order does not apply in this case because bankruptcy courts have held that a § 105 restraining order cannot be used to extend the bankruptcy “automatic stay” provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362 once the § 362 stay has expired.

Section 362(c)(2) keeps the stay of acts against a debtor in effect until the case is closed or dismissed or, in an individual Chapter 7 case, discharge is granted or denied.

Moss v. Miller (In Re Miller) · filed 1991-12-19(c)(2)

In the instant bankruptcy case, there has been no termination or expiration of the automatic stay under § 362, ... and therefore the statute of limitations remains tolled.

Section 362’s automatic stay ends when the bankruptcy case is dismissed, making an appeal from an order lifting the stay moot.

In Re OLIVE STREET INVESTMENT, INC., Appellant, v. HOWARD SAVINGS BANK, Appellee · filed 1992-08-05

Once the bankruptcy proceeding is dismissed, neither the goal of a successful reorganization nor the debtor’s right to the automatic stay continues to exist. Accordingly, it no longer serves any purpose to determine whether the bankruptcy court properly lifted the automatic stay; the appeal has become moot.

Section 362(c)(1)’s rule that a stay continues until property leaves the bankruptcy estate does not apply when a creditor obtains relief from the stay under subsection (d).

C S & W Contractors, Inc. v. Southwest Savings & Loan Ass'n · filed 1992-11-10(c)(1)

Subsection (d) provides that a creditor may seek relief from the automatic stay under certain conditions. Those conditions were the basis for Southwest’s motion for relief from the stay. Therefore, 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(1) is not applicable.

In a Chapter 7 case, the automatic stay ends when the debtor receives a discharge, so later IRS actions do not violate the stay.

Johnson v. COMMISSIONER, IRS · filed 2003-08-19(c)(2)(C)

The court, therefore, adopts the R & R and the Order in whole, and incorporates both by specific reference. ... It is undisputed that during the time the automatic stay was in effect (October 14, 1992 until February 24, 1993) that the IRS made no attempt to collect or assess Johnson’s taxes and that Johnson did not have a case pending in the United States Tax Court. Johnson filed his case in the United States Tax Court on August 23, 1993. The undersigned finds that the IRS did not violate the automatic stay.

Section 362's automatic stay of an action against the debtor continued, in the court's view, until the bankruptcy case was closed or dismissed.

McCray v. Adams · filed 1988-04-06(c)(2)

According to 11 U.S.C. section 362 of the bankruptcy code, ... the stay of actions such as that involved in this proceeding continued until the time the case was closed or dismissed.

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

Stanwyck v. Comm'r · filed 2012-06-28(c)(2)

The automatic stay generally remains in effect until the earliest of the closing of the case, the ... dismissal of the case, or the grant or denial of a discharge. ... The record supports that the bankruptcy court granted summary judgment against petitioner and the discharge was denied in September 2003. Petitioner has not demonstrated that the automatic stay provision remained in effect.

Section 362(c) governs when the automatic stay ends, including when property leaves the bankruptcy estate.

In re Vanhook · filed 2012-02-21(c)

The bankruptcy estate no longer asserts any interest in these funds. The automatic stay is no longer in effect. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(c).

Section 362(c) ends the stay against estate property when that property leaves the estate and ends the stay against other acts when the case closes.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Wyoming - Cheyenne · filed 2015-02-27(c)(1)-(2)

Therefore, the confirmation of their plan vested all property of the estate in them (under § 1141(b)) and the automatic stay ceased as to that property at plan confirmation (under § 362(c)(1)). The stay against all other acts terminated, by the express language of § 362(c)(2), when the Raels elected to close their case.

Section 362 keeps the automatic stay in place for acts against estate property until that property leaves the estate, while denial of discharge ends the stay for other acts.

In re Kramer · filed 2016-03-29(c)(1), (c)(2)(C)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, consistent with 11 U.S.C. §§ 362(a) and 362(c)(1), the automatic stay in this case under § 362(a) continues with respect to any act against property of the estate, until such property is no longer property of the estate; or until such stay terminates under some other provision of the Bankruptcy Code; or until the Court orders otherwise. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, consistent with 11 U.S.C. §§ 362(a) and 362(c)(2)(C), the automatic stay under § 362(a) of any act other than an act against property of the estate is terminated.

Section 362(c)(1)'s stay of acts against estate property does not apply to a divorce property division.

Benjamin S. v. Stephanie S. · filed 2018-01-31(c)(1)

Benjamin is mistaken; 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(1) did not apply to this proceeding.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) ends the automatic stay when a discharge is granted or denied.

In Re: L&L Wings, Inc. · filed 2023-03-01(c)(2)(C)

Once the Confirmation Order confirming the Plan was entered in the bankruptcy case, the automatic stay was extinguished and replaced with a discharge injunction.

Section 362(a)(3) requires a creditor that repossessed estate property before bankruptcy to return it upon learning of the petition; retaining it violates the automatic stay.

Weber v. SEFCU · filed 2012-03-23(a)(3)

For all of these reasons, the undersigned finds that the Appellee was required to return the Ford to Appellant upon learning that Appellant filed a bankruptcy petition and failure to do so violated the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3).

Section 362’s automatic stay is violated when a creditor refuses to return a vehicle repossessed before bankruptcy if legal title and redemption rights remain with the debtor.

Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Rozier · filed 2004-07-19

Because legal title and the right of redemption of the vehicle remained with Derryl Franklin Rozier, a defaulted debtor, after creditor Motor Acceptance repossessed that vehicle, but had not yet complied with the disposition or retention procedures of the Georgia Uniform Commercial Code, the district court did not err by affirming the bankruptcy court’s order holding Motors Acceptance in willful contempt of the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 by refusing to return the vehicle.

Section 362(a)(3) requires a creditor that repossesses estate property after a bankruptcy filing to return it unconditionally once it learns of the filing.

In re: Thomas Wesley Wallace · filed 2014-03-26(a)(3)

These cases stand for the proposition that creditors have a mandatory and unconditional duty under §§ 362(a)(3) and 542(a) to relinquish control of estate property acquired or controlled postpetition.

Section 362(k) does not allow an attorney who represents herself in a stay violation proceeding to recover attorney’s fees as part of a contempt order.

In Re Fitzpatrick · filed 2012-04-04(k)

For the above mentioned reasons, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(k), Debtor, an attorney who represented herself in this case, cannot recover attorney’s fees as part of a contempt order.

Section 362(k)(1) allows a debtor to recover reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in prosecuting a damages action for a willful stay violation, including fees incurred successfully defending the award on appeal.

America's Servicing Co. v. Schwartz-Tallard · filed 2015-10-14(k)(1)

For these reasons, § 362(k) is best read as authorizing an award of attorney’s fees incurred in prosecuting an action for damages under the statute. ... We see no reason why fee awards under § 362(k) should be subject to a different rule. Schwartz-Tallard is therefore entitled to recover the attorney’s fees reasonably incurred in opposing ASC’s appeal in the district court.

Section 362(k) does not compensate debtors for fees incurred defending a bona fide motion to annul the stay because those fees do not arise from the stay violation.

In re: Mordechai Orian and Yun Ru · filed 2018-11-27(k)

We agree with the bankruptcy court that the debtors’ fees related to the relief from stay motion did not arise from the stay violation for purposes of awarding damages under § 362(k).

Section 362(k) includes attorney’s fees in a stay violation damages award, but bankruptcy courts may limit the award to reasonable fees.

Sundquist v. Henderson · filed 2020-10-27(k)

Second, the bankruptcy court has broad discretion in determining the amount of fees that are reasonable, especially considering the court’s unique position to observe the attorney’s performance during the course of the bankruptcy proceedings. See America’s Serv. Co. v. Schwartz-Tallard (In re Schwartz-Tallard), 803 F.3d 1095, 1101 (9th Cir. 2015) (explaining how bankruptcy judges retain the discretion to eliminate unnecessary or plainly excessive fees under § 362(k)).

Section 362(k)(1) limits recoverable attorney’s fees to the time reasonably required to remedy a stay violation.

Katherine Florence Behar Geller · filed 2021-09-30(k)(1)

Therefore, it is appropriate to limit the Debtor’s counsel’s fees under § 362(k)(1) to the amount of time reasonably required to remedy the stay violation.

Section 362(k) attorney’s fees for a stay violation may be reduced to reflect limited success in proving damages.

Carmichael Do not docket in this case. Case remanded to the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern Distr · filed 2022-07-18(k)

Judge Isgur properly reduced the fee award to account for the relatively limited success Carmichael achieved in the pursuit of the claims against Balke.

Section 362(k)(1) permits an award of attorney’s fees for a willful stay violation only when the debtor has suffered an actual injury.

TOPPIN v. WILLIAMS · filed 2022-11-03(k)(1)

Noting the plain language of the statute this Court agrees that actual injury is a condition precedent for attorney’s fees under Section 362(k).

Section 362(k)(1) excludes separable appellate attorney’s fees for another debtor’s unsuccessful claim from the injured debtor’s actual damages for a stay violation.

Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC v. Gunnels-Moon · filed 2023-02-06(k)(1)

Those fees are severable and do not count as damages incurred in defending Adnette’s stay violation claim on appeal.

Section 362 stays a pending postjudgment motion for attorney’s fees after a defendant files a Chapter 11 petition until the bankruptcy court grants relief.

NORTHROCK MINERALS LLC v. COHEN · filed 2025-08-22

In light of the bankruptcy petition, plaintiff’s pending motion for attorney’s fees, over which the Court retains jurisdiction despite the entry of final judgment, is hereby stayed. See ECF No. 67. The stay will remain in effect unless and until relief is granted by Bankruptcy Court.

Recovery of attorney’s fees and costs from the United States in a § 362(k) action requires exhaustion of IRS administrative remedies.

Barcelos v. United States (In re Barcelos) · filed 2017-10-12(k)

For an action under § 362(k), the United States has different standards of consent applicable to (1) claims for compensatory damages generally and (2) claims for attorney’s fees and costs. ... But the United States’ waiver of sovereign immunity for awards of attorney’s fees and costs has a condition precedent: compliance with administrative requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Code, i.e., exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Section 362(k)(1) permits limiting attorney’s fees for a stay violation to the amount that would have been needed if debtor’s counsel had first tried to resolve it.

Glenn v. Army & Air Force Exchange Services · filed 2020-05-06(k)(1)

In sum, this Court agrees with decisions explaining that Section 362(k)(1) is intended as a shield, not a sword and finds that when Debtor’s Counsel files precipitous litigation without even attempting resolution beforehand, it is consistent with principles of equity and sound public policy to limit attorney’s fees to those that would have been required if mitigation efforts had been exercised.

Section 362(k)(1) limits attorney’s fees for a stay violation to the time reasonably needed to remedy it when counsel fails to attempt resolution before suing.

Donald Thomas Glenn · filed 2020-05-06(k)(1)

It is appropriate to limit Plaintiff’s counsel’s fees under §362(k)(1) to the amount of time reasonably required to remedy the stay violation.

Section 362(g) places the burden of proving the debtor’s equity on the party seeking stay relief and the burden on other issues on the party opposing relief.

In re: Toni Marie Griffin · filed 2012-04-06(g)

As provided in § 362(g), the party opposing relief from the stay has the burden of proof on all issues other than the debtor’s equity in a property. Thus, once a movant establishes that there is no equity in a property, it is the burden of the party opposing the motion to establish that the collateral at issue is necessary to an effective reorganization.

Section 362(g) assigns the burden of proving the debtor’s equity to the party seeking relief from the automatic stay and the burden on all other issues to the party opposing relief.

In re Hoffman · filed 2013-09-30(g)

Under 11 U.S.C. § 362(g), the party requesting relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d) has the burden of proof on the issue of the debtor’s equity in property, and the party opposing such relief has the burden of proof on all other issues.

Section 362(g) assigns the ultimate burden of persuasion on issues other than the debtor’s equity to the party opposing stay relief, while the party seeking relief must first come forward with evidence.

In re: Melissa Rodriguez Lira · filed 2014-04-23(g)

Ms. Lira is correct that although couched in terms of burdens of “proof,” § 362(g) actually establishes the ultimate burdens of “persuasion,” where the burden of going forward with the evidence initially is on the party seeking relief in the first instance, in this case, Bayview.

A debtor alleging a violation of the automatic stay must prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Anketell v. Smith (In re Anketell) · filed 2017-03-13(k)(1)

Anke-tell has the burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Smiths violated the automatic stay.

A plaintiff seeking damages under § 362(k)(1) must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the automatic stay was violated willfully and that the violation caused injury.

Ragone, Jr. v. Pizza Pan Elyria, LLC · filed 2019-05-21(k)(1)

More recent case law holds that in order to prevail on a §362(k) claim, a plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the stay imposed under §362 was violated, that the violation was committed willfully and that plaintiff was injured by the violation.

Section 362(g) places the burden of proving the debtor’s equity in property on the party seeking relief from the stay and the burden on all other issues on the party opposing relief.

Lewis M. Winstead · filed 2019-07-31(g)

On motion for relief from stay, the party requesting relief has the burden of proof on the issue of the debtor’s equity in property and the party opposing relief has the burden of proof on all other issues.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not apply to a non-debtor guarantor.

Helena Agri-Enterprises, LLC v. K&K Farms · filed 2025-02-19

For instance, when Joseph filed for bankruptcy, he triggered Section 362’s automatic stay. But the automatic stay does not apply to Wanda because she is a non-debtor.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not extend to nondebtor guarantors when litigation against them has minimal impact on reorganization and their guaranty creates separate liability.

Nuovo Ciao-Di LLC and George E. Shoup III · filed 2023-09-22

Here, the automatic stay should not extend to the Guarantors because the Lawsuit will have minimal, if any, impact on the Debtor’s reorganization efforts.

Section 362(a)'s automatic stay protecting a debtor does not shield a nondebtor guarantor from a creditor's suit on the guaranty.

Fleisher v. Southern AgCredit · filed 2012-04-10(a)

Nor is he, as a codebtor, shielded by the automatic stay that protects MS VIII.

Section 362(a) generally does not stay claims against nondebtor guarantors unless those claims would have an immediate adverse economic consequence for the debtor’s estate.

Empire Erectors and Electrical Co. v. Unlimited Locations LLC · filed 2013-01-03(a)

The court erred in denying plaintiffs motion on the basis of the automatic stay triggered by the bankruptcy petition filed by Unlimited only (see 11 USC § 362 [a]). The automatic bankruptcy stay is generally not extended to non-debtor guarantors (see Milliken & Co. v Stewart, 182 AD2d 385, 386 [1st Dept 1992], citing Credit Alliance Corp. v Williams, 851 F2d 119 [4th Cir 1988]). The automatic stay normally applies to non-debtors only when a claim against a non-debtor will have “an immediate adverse economic consequence for the debtor’s estate” (Queenie, Ltd. v Nygard Intl., 321 F3d 282, 287 [2d Cir 2003]). Sallusto and Indelicate have not made a showing that the continuation of this action against them would have such an effect on Unlimited’s estate.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays an action against the debtor, but does not automatically stay the action against a nondebtor guarantor.

Crescom Bank v. Terry · filed 2013-03-07(a)(1)

Thus, CCT’s filing for bankruptcy automatically stayed CresCom’s action against CCT, but not against Terry.

Section 362’s automatic stay generally applies to the debtor, not a guarantor.

Creative Touch Interiors v. Dist. Ct. (Brown) · filed 2013-09-20

As to the automatic bankruptcy stay, the stay is generally applicable to the debtor only, not a guarantor.

Section 362(a) does not protect a nondebtor guarantor when no unusual circumstances justify extending the automatic stay to that guarantor.

Whitman-Nieves v. Puerto Rico Federal Credit Union (In re Whitman-Nieves) · filed 2014-10-03(a)

Hence, the general rule that a non-debtor guarantor is not entitled to the protection of the automatic stay prevails.

Section 362(a)(6) does not bar collection efforts against a nondebtor guarantor when those efforts are not collection actions against the debtor.

Whitman-Nieves v. Puerto Rico Federal Credit Union (In re Whitman-Nieves) · filed 2016-04-08(a)(6)

The provisions of the automatic stay are for 'the benefit of the debtor, they áre not extensive to third parties, thus collection efforts against a third party or a guarantor that is not a debtor in bankruptcy are not protected by the provisions of the automatic stay.

Section 362’s automatic stay protects the debtor but does not ordinarily protect a nondebtor guarantor.

Pick-Your-Own, Inc. · filed 2019-11-21

Although the automatic stay protects the Debtor from continuation of the state court litigation, it does not protect Bejan.

Section 362’s automatic stay generally does not protect an independently liable nondebtor guarantor, but a bankruptcy court may extend it in unusual circumstances involving a close identity of interests with the debtor.

Cottle, LLC v. Small Business Financial Solutions, LLC d/b/a Rapi · filed 2025-06-04

The automatic stay provided by 11 U.S.C. § 362 does not extend to non-debtor third parties, including guarantors who are independently liable. However, the Fourth Circuit has recognized bankruptcy courts have the authority to extend the automatic stay to non-debtors, including guarantors, in certain unusual circumstances. ... No such unusual circumstances to justify the extension of the stay are alleged here.

Section 362(a)(3) reaches a foreign declaratory action that seeks to control a claim belonging to the bankruptcy estate when the court has personal jurisdiction over the party bringing it.

Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment · filed 2012-05-04(a)(3)

The Cayman Action constitutes an act by Maxam Limited “to exercise control over property of the estate” in violation of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3).

Section 362(b)(1) exempts criminal forfeiture proceedings from the automatic stay because they are part of a criminal case.

United States v. A. Erpenbeck, Jr. · filed 2012-06-21(b)(1)

But the Code exempts from this automatic stay “the commencement or continuation of a criminal action or proceeding against the debtor.” Id. § 362(b)(1). Because criminal forfeiture is part and parcel of a criminal case, see Libretti, 516 U.S. at 39, it falls squarely within this exemption.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay contempt proceedings to stop a debtor’s ongoing trademark infringement through tortious use of property.

Dominic's Restaurant of Dayton v. Mantia · filed 2012-07-05(a)(1)

Because this matter involves Powers’s use of the restaurant to commit a tort, specifically the tort of trademark and service mark infringement, application of the automatic stay would permit Powers to continue to commit this tort. ... Therefore, Power’s petition for bankruptcy does not stay this judicial proceeding.

Section 362(d)(4) permits relief from the automatic stay when a debtor’s petition is used in a scheme to delay, hinder, or defraud creditors, even if the debtor did not participate in the scheme or act in bad faith.

In re Dorsey · filed 2012-07-26(d)(4)

The court agrees with this analysis and notes that § 362(d)(4) is written in the passive voice, and thus it does not require any involvement of the Debtor. The language of § 362(d)(4) is likewise devoid of any requirement of a finding of bad faith by the Debtor.

Section 362(a)(3) does not bar an adversary from seeking dismissal of a debtor's claim or counterclaim.

BIOCONVERGENCE LLC v. ATTARIWALA · filed 2021-08-04(a)(3)

As we had previously noted in our Order granting Singota's request for a declaration, an adversary who seeks dismissal of a debtor's claim or counterclaim does not violate Section 362(a)(3).

Section 362 does not stay a lawsuit brought by a debtor when the defendant only defends against the claims and asserts no counterclaim.

Houey v. Carolina First Bank · filed 2012-08-10

The pending action, however, is a lawsuit brought by the Houeys, now debtors, against TD in which TD has not asserted a counterclaim against them. ... This case is therefore not subject to the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay a lawsuit brought by a debtor before it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

K-V Pharmaceutical Company v. United States Food and Drug Administration · filed 2012-09-06(a)(1)

The notice indicates plaintiffs’ view that the automatic stay provision in the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1), does not stay this case. [Dkt. # 18]. The Court agrees.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay a debtor’s or trustee’s prosecution of the debtor’s claims against another party.

Pinpoint IT Services, LLC v. Atlas IT Export, LLC (In re Atlas IT Export, LLC) · filed 2013-04-23(a)(1)

Here, the automatic stay had no impact whatsoever on Landrau Rivera’s power to litigate Atlas’ claims against Pinpoint — in either Virginia or in Puerto Rico.

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

Maguire v. Mtc Financial · filed 2013-05-15(a)(1)

The automatic bankruptcy stay applies to judicial action against a debtor, not to actions by a debtor.

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

Horspool v. Updike CA4/2 · filed 2013-06-27(a)(1)

In the current action, William was plaintiff. By its terms, therefore, the statute did not apply to his action, and no automatic stay took effect.

Section 362(a) does not stay an action brought by a debtor or prevent application of a rule requiring dismissal for failure to prosecute that action.

King v. Rice · filed 2013-06-10(a)

But, the bankruptcy stay does not apply to an action brought by, rather than against, a debtor and does not prevent the ... application of CR 41(b)(1).

Section 362’s automatic stay applies to creditors’ claims against the debtor, but not to claims brought by the debtor.

Marcarelli v. Grocott (In re Grocott) · filed 2014-03-17(a)

This difference may be important because the automatic stay does not apply to debtor's claims, only creditor’s claims.

Section 362(a)(1) stays actions against a debtor, but does not stay an appeal arising from an action the debtor initiated.

Miller v. James Prince A/K/A James Smith · filed 2014-04-22(a)(1)

Thus, the automatic stay imposed by Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code does not apply because it stays actions against a debtor, whereas this appeal relates to an action by the debtor.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay litigation of a counterclaim brought by the debtor before bankruptcy, because the counterclaim is a separate proceeding against the creditor.

Gecy v. Bank of the Ozarks (In re Gecy) · filed 2014-04-25(a)(1)

Applying the Third Circuit’s reasoning, the counterclaim Gecy asserted in the Beaufort County action was a separate proceeding by him against BOTO not subject to the automatic stay under section 362(a)(1).

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay an action brought by the debtor to pursue the debtor’s own claims.

Gonzalez v. Ocwen Home Loan Servicing · filed 2015-02-25(a)(1)

This action was plainly not filed “against the debtor” within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). No automatic stay applies to this case.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay adjudication of claims brought by the debtor, including motions to dismiss those claims.

Abreu v. Jamaica Avenue Funding LLC (In re Abreu) · filed 2015-03-27(a)(1)

Here, the automatic stay did not preclude the State Court from deciding the ERG Defendants’ and the Harris Beach Defendants’ motions to dismiss, to the extent that they sought dismissal of the claims brought by the Plaintiff.

Section 362(a) does not stay a third-party action commenced by the debtor, so an order issued in that action is not void for violating the automatic stay.

Josovich v. Ceylan · filed 2015-11-04(a)

Here, however, the order was issued in a third-party action that was commenced by the debtor and not in the main action commenced against him (see In re Cook, 520 Fed Appx 697, 704 [10th Cir 2013]; Koolik v Markowitz, 40 F3d 567 [2d Cir 1994]; In re Merrick, 175 BR 333, 337 [BAP 9th Cir 1994]).

Section 362(a)(1)'s automatic stay does not apply to a debtor's counterclaims against third parties.

Hudson Bay Master Fund Ltd. v. Patriot Nat'l, Inc. · filed 2018-02-14(a)(1)

Therefore, the stay does not apply to a debtor's "third-party complaint, cross-claims," or as here, its "counterclaims."

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay a debtor’s own lawsuit when no claims are pending against the debtor.

KEMP v. SELECT PORTFOLIO, INC. · filed 2019-07-26(a)(1)

Clearly, because there are no claims pending against Plaintiff - the debtor - in this action, it is not subject to the automatic stay.

Section 362(a) does not stay a lawsuit brought by the debtor because that action is not against the debtor or the bankruptcy estate.

Kennedy v. Client Services, Inc. · filed 2019-09-03(a)

Here, however, the action is not against the debtor or the estate because it is Plaintiff who has filed for bankruptcy.

Section 362(a) does not stay all deadlines in litigation brought by the debtor as plaintiff.

Priscilla B. Taylor · filed 2019-09-10(a)

Importantly, because Ms. Taylor was a plaintiff in the state court litigation, the automatic stay arising from § 362(a) did not act to stay all the litigation deadlines in her case, they way it would have if she had been a defendant in the state court litigation.

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

Myers v. McNamee, Hosea, Jernigan, Kim, Greenan & Lynch, P.A. · 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(a) does not stay an action brought by the debtor as plaintiff.

Myers v. McNamee Hosea Jernigan Kim Greenan & Lynch, P.A. · filed 2020-02-14(a)

This case is not an action brought “against the debtor,” 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), but rather an action brought by Myers. Thus, the automatic stay provision, by its plain terms, does not reach an action where the debtor is the plaintiff.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay claims brought by a debtor against a defendant, including the defendant’s motion to dismiss when it has filed no counterclaim.

Hegedus v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC · filed 2020-02-27(a)(1)

In the instant case, the claims were brought by the Hegeduses, not against them. Nationstar filed no counterclaim. The automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code does not apply to void the court’s orders in the suit brought by the Hegeduses.

Section 362(a)(1) does not bar claims brought by a debtor in possession.

Enalasys Corporation v. Taylor · filed 2020-03-13(a)(1)

Because the automatic stay does not forbid claims by a debtor in possession, see In re White, 186 B.R. 700, 704 (BAP 9th Cir., 1995), this apparently means the state court has entered a stay.

Section 362(a)(1) and (a)(3) do not stay a lawsuit brought by the debtor to obtain a tax refund.

TTC Illinois Incorporated and TTC Holdings Incorporated · filed 2020-06-24(a)(1), (a)(3)

Placement of the Protest Monies Act case on the state court bankruptcy calendar may not have been necessary because, as discussed above, the case was brought by TTC to obtain a refund of taxes paid and therefore was not subject to ... the automatic stay.

The automatic stay applies to creditor claims against a debtor but does not prevent the debtor from pursuing its own lawsuit.

International Food Service Purchasing Group, Inc. v. Beavers · filed 2020-07-31(a)

Accordingly, the Northern District of Illinois action is subject to the automatic stay, but the District of Puerto Rico action may proceed because IFSPG (the debtor) filed suit against the defendants.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay claims a debtor pursues against others.

Klein v. Koenig · filed 2021-05-27(a)(1)

The automatic stay is applicable to actions “proceeding against the debtor.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(1) (emphasis added). Here, however, Plaintiff, i.e., the debtor, is pursuing claims against others.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay a judicial action brought by the debtor.

GPMI Company v. Michelin Lifestyle Limited · filed 2022-03-30(a)(1)

Because Plaintiff is the debtor in the underlying bankruptcy petition, the automatic bankruptcy stay does not apply.

Section 362(a) does not stay an appeal brought by the debtor when the underlying order is not an action against the debtor or the bankruptcy estate.

CALWAY v. CALWAY · filed 2022-11-02(a)

Because the final order on appeal did not involve an action against appellant as a debtor or against appellant’s bankruptcy estate, the automatic stay does not preclude this court from disposing of the appeal.

Section 362(a)(1) and (a)(3) do not prevent dismissal for failure to prosecute of an action brought by the debtor, even if the automatic stay remains in effect.

Ocasio v. Flying Software Labs · filed 2023-01-04(a)(1), (a)(3)

The court accordingly concludes that even if the automatic bankruptcy stay remains in effect, the stay does not preclude dismissal of this action for failure to comply with the court’s orders and for failure to prosecute.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay claims brought by a debtor against others, even when the debtor filed for bankruptcy while those claims were pending.

Lanasa v. Stiene · filed 2023-07-21(a)(1)

As the claims raised by Plaintiff TSR LLC are claims asserted by, and not against, the debtor, they are not subject to the automatic stay and can be adjudicated.

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

BHPH Capital LLC v. JV Wholesalers LLC · filed 2023-09-12(a)

The bankruptcy stay does not affect counterclaims, because bankruptcy stays are inapplicable to actions or proceedings commenced by the debtor.

Section 362(a) stays proceedings against a debtor, but does not stay an action brought by the debtor that is not an appeal from a proceeding originally brought against the debtor.

Ofer v. Isicoff · filed 2024-04-30(a)

The Court recognizes that the automatic stay provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) is at play in the underlying bankruptcy proceedings. But, as other courts have held, “Section 362 by its terms only stays proceedings against the debtor. The statute does not address actions brought by the debtor[.]” Trans Caribbean Lines, Inc. v. Tracor Marine, Inc., 49 B.R. 360 (S.D. Fla. 1985) (quoting Assoc. of St. Croix Condo. Owners v. St. Croix Hotel Corp., 682 F.2d 446, 448 (3d Cir. 1982). Further, this is not an appeal from proceedings that were originally brought against the debtor.

Section 362(a) does not stay claims initiated by the debtor or prevent a defendant from defending against those claims.

State of Nevada v. Bernard-Ex · filed 2025-01-07(a)

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

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay a debtor’s third-party claims or counterclaims.

Beyond Bespoke Tailors, Inc. v. Barchiesi · filed 2025-01-21(a)(1)

As relevant here, the automatic stay under Section 362 does not apply to either Debtor’s third-party claims or counterclaims.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay an appeal in an action brought by the debtor because the provision covers proceedings against the debtor.

MEMON v. MOUNTAIN EXPRESS OIL COMPANY · filed 2025-02-18(a)(1)

Here, the case on appeal was brought by [Mountain Express Oil Company], the “debtor.” As a result, 11 USC § 362, which concerns “proceeding[s] against the debtor,” does not apply. ... Notwithstanding, as of the date of this order, neither attorney has tendered anything further to this Court – among others, ... not a response countering the brief filed by (appellee) Mountain Express Oil Company on that issue (which legal analysis therein we find persuasive); ... and not a motion seeking remand on grounds that material factual matters remain for the trial court to resolve.

Section 362(a) stays actions against the debtor or estate property, but does not stay an appeal arising from the debtor’s own complaint.

Farina v. Bank of New York · filed 2025-02-20(a)

That provision, however, provides that a bankruptcy petition will operate as a stay of actions against the debtor or the property of the bankruptcy estate. The matter before us does not involve an action against Edith Farina or the property of her bankruptcy estate. The underlying complaint was filed by the Farinas and not against them or their property.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay litigation in which the debtor is the plaintiff.

Daniel M. Risis · filed 2025-04-23(a)(1)

In cases where the Debtor is the plaintiff, the automatic stay does not apply.

The automatic stay does not bar continuation of a lawsuit the debtor brought before bankruptcy when the defendant asserted no counterclaims against the debtor.

Rahul Dev Manchanda · filed 2025-05-12(a)(1)

But the State Court Action was brought by the Debtor himself and Blockchain has not filed any counterclaims against the Debtor. Thus, there is no reason to believe that continuing with the State Court Action would have an adverse impact on the property of the Debtor’s estate, let alone a legal certainty that it will do so. See Picard, 762 F.3d at 208. The automatic stay is therefore inapplicable to the State Court Parties and the Debtor’s Motions with respect to them are denied.

Section 362(a) stays actions against a debtor, but does not stay claims the debtor brings against another party.

Williams v. Dejoy · filed 2025-07-09(a)

Here, Plaintiff is the initiating party in this litigation; the stay had no legal effect on claims that Plaintiff brought against another party.

Section 362(a) stays actions against a debtor, but does not prevent the debtor from pursuing its own foreclosure action.

Bryant v. Ditech Financial, LLC · filed 2025-09-03(a)

Claims asserted by a debtor are not subject to the automatic stay because they are not actions “against the debtor.” ... SLS fails to explain how, in light of the Fifth Circuit’s precedent and § 362(a) itself, the Bankruptcy Stay prevented Ditech from foreclosing on the Property.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay a debtor’s appeal from an attorney fee award in an action the debtor originally brought.

Navellier v. Putnam · filed 2026-02-02(a)(1)

Accordingly, NAI’s appeal from the fee award in an action it originally brought is not subject to the automatic bankruptcy stay.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay an action brought by the debtor; it applies to proceedings against the debtor.

Haldane · filed 2026-02-05(a)(1)

As a preliminary matter and following consideration of the parties’ respective positions, (D.I. 160; D.I. 161; D.I. 162; D.I. 164), the court addresses the application of the Section 362(a) automatic stay to these proceedings and finds that the automatic stay does not preclude adjudication of the three pending motions addressed herein.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay a debtor’s appeal from an attorney fee award in an action the debtor brought when the fee award is ancillary to that action.

Navellier v. Putnam · filed 2026-02-24(a)(1)

Accordingly, NAI’s appeal from the fee award in an action it originally brought is not subject to the automatic bankruptcy stay.

Section 362(a)(1) permits a defendant to defend against a lawsuit brought by a debtor, including by seeking summary judgment, so long as the defendant does not assert a counterclaim.

Heartwise · filed 2026-04-06(a)(1)

The stay does not prevent a defendant who is sued by a debtor from defending itself in the debtor’s lawsuit, so long as the defendant does not file a counterclaim.

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

Picker v. Rollins Leasing Corp. · filed 1989-06-14(a)

Defendant does not argue that this action is automatically stayed under 11 USC § 362(a). That section provides that a bankruptcy filing operates as a stay of actions “against the debtor,” but not of actions by the debtor.

Section 362 does not prevent a debtor in possession from prosecuting its own action.

133-135 Covent Restaurant Corp. v. Covent Associates, L.P. · filed 1995-07-06

Contrary to plaintiff’s erroneous belief (see, Matter of People v New Woman, 197 AD2d 525, lv dismissed 83 NY2d 904) that its removal application stayed it from prosecuting the action, plaintiff was "debtor in possession” until conversion of the bankruptcy proceeding from a Chapter 11 reorganization to a Chapter 7 liquidation, in possession of most of the rights and powers that a Trustee would have, including the right to sue (11 USC § 1107 [a]; cf, 11 USC § 362).

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay an appeal brought by the debtor when the appeal itself does not collect a debt.

Marine Midland Bank v. Herriott · filed 1980-11-24(a)(1)

Section 362(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that the filing of a petition in bankruptcy shall operate as a stay of judicial proceedings “against the debtor.” The appeal before this court, however, is not an action “against the debtor,” i.e., Westboro, but was brought by the debtor.

The automatic stay does not apply to a debtor’s offensive actions, including pursuit of its counterclaim.

In Re United States Abatement Corp. · filed 1993-08-02

As the Bankruptcy Court noted, the automatic stay does not apply to actions by the debtor in which the debtor is in an offensive posture.

Section 362(a)(3) does not stay a debtor’s action brought for the benefit of the bankruptcy estate.

Dilieto v. County Obstetrics, No. (Xo2) Cv97-0150435s (Feb. 29, 2000) · filed 2000-02-29(a)(3)

The automatic stay under § 362 applies to actions filed against the debtor rather than by the debtor.

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

FWK Holdings LLC v. Shire PLC (Direct Purchaser Antitrust Class Action Complaint) · filed 2020-07-08(a)

As a preliminary matter, RDC’s bankruptcy proceeding does not automatically stay this class action. The automatic stay provision in 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) “‘only stays proceedings against the debtor,’ and ‘does not address actions brought by the debtor which would inure to the ... benefit of the bankruptcy estate.’” In re Fin. News Network Inc., 158 B.R. 570, 572 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Carley Capital Grp. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 889 F.2d 1126, 1127 (D.C. Cir. 1989)).

Section 362(a)(1) stays actions against the debtor, but does not prevent the debtor from suing others or toll the time to bring those claims.

Bauman v. Wells Fargo Bank CA4/1 · filed 2021-05-07(a)(1)

Voluntary bankruptcy filings stay only actions against the debtor. Bankruptcy filings do not stay actions by the debtor against others.

Section 362(a)(1) does not automatically stay a lawsuit brought by the debtor when no claims are asserted against the debtor or the estate.

Rozich v. MTC Financial Incorporated · filed 2024-05-03(a)(1)

There is no automatic stay of this action, nor has Plaintiff provided any alternative grounds in support of his request to stay this matter.

Section 362(a)'s automatic stay does not apply to a debtor's own counterclaims.

Pizarro v. Euros El Tina Restaurant Lounge and Billiards Corp. · filed 2024-05-20(a)

The question is whether an automatic bankruptcy stay applies to an action brought by the debtor. It does not.

The automatic stay permits a state court order recognizing the stay and preserving funds in the court registry pending a later order, and permits parties to propose such an order.

Derrick Bernard Jackson · filed 2023-04-10(a)(1), (a)(3)

Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that neither the submission of the proposed language by counsel for Respondents nor the order itself violates the automatic stay.

Section 362’s automatic stay makes a state court order granting an attorney leave of absence void when the order is entered during the stay.

Jinks v. Eastman Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2012-08-27

Because the January 14, 2008 order granting the plaintiffs’ attorney a leave of absence was improvidently entered in violation of the automatic stay in bankruptcy, it was void, and the record affirmatively shows that the case was inactive for a period of five years when the bankruptcy stay was not in place.

Section 362(a) does not bar a state court from entering a stay of its proceedings that is coextensive with the bankruptcy automatic stay.

PNC Bank, N.A. v. Yen · filed 2016-02-26(a)

A coextensive stay entered by a state court does not, however, continue proceedings in violation of the automatic stay.

Section 362 automatically stays a pending state court action against a debtor when the debtor files for bankruptcy, depriving the state court of jurisdiction while the stay applies.

Rosado v. Rosado · filed 2010-03-10

Ello activó inmediatamente la paralización automática y detuvo el procedimiento ante el foro local. 11 U.S.C. sec. 362. En ese momento el referido foro perdió jurisdicción sobre el pleito y éste quedo suspendido.

Section 362(a)'s automatic stay may be modified to allow a state court proceeding to continue in the trial court and on appeal.

In Re Ericson · filed 1983-02-04(a)

The court concludes that the relief prayed for by Melodie in her motion should in substance be granted; that pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 543(d) the referee appointed by the Superior Court should be excused from complying with 11 U.S.C. § 543 at this time, but that after the Superior Court has determined the net amount due to the debtor the referee should then comply with 11 U.S.C. § 543; and that the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) should be modified so that Superior Court Case No. C 350396 may proceed, both in the trial court and on appeal.

Section 362(a)(3) and (a)(6) do not bar a creditor from accepting a third party’s payment of a claim when the creditor takes no action to obtain estate property or collect from the debtor.

Olick v. Northampton County Tax Claim Bureau · filed 2012-11-16(a)(3), (a)(6)

In accepting funds from Bank of America, Northampton County did not take any action to obtain possession of property of the estate or to collect its claim against Olick.

Section 362 does not prohibit a mortgagee from applying payments made by a nondebtor son from his own income in accordance with the debtor’s confirmed Chapter 13 plan.

Young v. Chase Home Finance, LLC (In re Young) · filed 2015-01-14

Count 3 argues that Chase violated the automatic stay by collecting mortgage loan payments from the Debtor’s son.... Also, Young’s son’s income is not property of the estate — only the debtor’s post-petition earnings would be property of the estate.... But even assuming for argument only the payments by Young’s son were property of the estate, the allegations, taken as true, do not show Chase “unlawfully” took post-petition earnings. Instead, those funds were paid consistent with the confirmed plan and Chase was entitled to apply those funds to its secured claim.

Section 362 does not stay a creditor's separate claim against a third party merely because the debtor is in bankruptcy.

Stone's Pharmacy, Inc. v. Pharmacy Accounting Management · filed 1989-06-28

Pharmacy's claim under the Act, at least as limited by this opinion, is separate from any claim Stone's Pharmacy has against PAM and therefore PAM's bankruptcy and the automatic stay do not affect the continuation of this action.