11 U.S.C. § 362

Section 362's automatic stay does not protect nondebtor third parties from subpoenas directed to them.

Board of Trustees of the Employee Painters Trust v. Quality Services, Inc. · filed 2025-09-17

The Court also notes that these third parties are not protected from the subpoenas by the automatic ... stay.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not prevent a creditor from collecting a debt from a nondebtor insurer.

In re: Charles Collett v. · filed 2014-05-21(a)

It is well established that a creditor may collect from a non-debtor third party without violating the automatic stay.

Section 362(a) does not stay litigation challenging a chapter 9 municipality’s tax ballot statement if the litigation seeks no monetary award against the municipality.

In re City of Stockton, California · filed 2013-09-18(a)

In short, the § 362(a) automatic stay does not bar the filing and prosecution of the ballot statement litigation so long as it does not lead to a monetary award against the City.

Section 362(a) does not stay a foreclosure action against borrowers on a mortgage loan that the debtor transferred before bankruptcy and in which the estate claims no interest.

White v. New Century TRS Holdings, Inc. (In re New Century TRS Holdings, Inc.) · filed 2013-12-06(a)

The automatic stay bars actions against a debtor, a debtor’s property or property of the estate. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). Deutsche Bank filed the Mortgage Foreclosure Complaint against the Whites to enforce its rights under the Note and Mortgage. There is no basis for finding that the automatic stay arising from the Debtors’ bankruptcy filing was applicable to the Mortgage Foreclosure Complaint.

Section 362(a) stays proceedings against a debtor in bankruptcy but allows the case to proceed against nonbankrupt codefendants.

Qwest Communications Co. v. Free Conferencing Corp. · filed 2014-01-03(a)

Notwithstanding GCP’s automatic bankruptcy stay, this case may still proceed against Audiocom, Basement Ventures, Free Conferencing, Ripple, and Vast.

Section 362(a)(1) bars claims against a debtor or its estate outside the scope of relief granted from the automatic stay.

Kirschenbaum ex rel. Estate of EMS Financial Services, LLC v. Federal Insurance · filed 2014-02-06(a)(1)

The Court further finds that granting White Lines permission to file its cross claims would constitute an end-run around the Bankruptcy Court automatic stay, which bars White Lines from asserting claims against EMS or its bankruptcy estate without leave of the Bankruptcy Court. While the proposed cross claims for declaratory relief are formally asserted against the Trustee, those claims, in fact, seek a declaration of EMS’s liability to White Lines, the very issue pending before the state court. The Bankruptcy Court granted limited relief from the automatic stay to litigate that question in state court, not in federal court.

Section 362(a)(6) stays debt collection outside bankruptcy proceedings but does not prohibit filing a proof of claim within the bankruptcy process.

Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC · filed 2014-07-10(a)(6)

It does not prohibit the filing of a proof of claim to collect a debt within the bankruptcy process.

Section 362(a) stays claims against the debtor, but does not stay claims the debtor asserts against others.

Thomas v. Ginter · filed 2014-07-29(a)

Even assuming the stay was in effect, the stay extends only to claims asserted against Thomas.

The automatic stay does not bar a lawsuit over property outside the debtor’s bankruptcy estate when the lawsuit does not otherwise implicate the stay.

Chase Plaza Condominium Association, Inc. and Darcy, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. · filed 2014-08-28(a)

Under the circumstances, we agree with the parties that the unit was not property of Mr. York’s bankruptcy estate and that the present lawsuit did not otherwise run afoul of the automatic stay.

Section 362's automatic stay generally protects only the debtor in bankruptcy, not codebtors, absent exceptional circumstances or an extension by the bankruptcy court.

Cruz Consulting Group, Inc. v. El Legado De Chi Chi Rodríguez · filed 2014-09-04

Aunque no fue alegado por las partes, aclaramos que para efectos de la controversia que hoy resolvemos no es de aplicación la paralización automática de los procedimientos que provee la Sec. 362 del Código de Quiebras, 11 U.S.C. sec. 362. Salvo circunstancias excepcionales, la protección que provee la paralización automática únicamente aplica a procedimientos contra el deudor que está acogido a la quiebra, mas no contra codeudores solidarios. Peerless Oil v. Hnos. Torres Pérez, 186 DPR 239, 256-259 (2012). En este caso, quien único está en quiebra es El Legado. Además, no surge del expediente que el Tribunal de Quiebras hubiese hecho extensiva la protección de la paralización automática a los peticionarios.

The automatic stay arising from a defendant’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy does not extend to nonbankrupt defendants in the same action.

Katz v. Mount Vernon Dialysis, LLC · filed 2014-10-15(a)

Where a defendant in an action files for chapter 11 bankruptcy relief, the automatic stay provisions of 11 USC § 362 (a) do not extend to the nonbankrupt defendants (see Vasquez v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 100 AD3d 868, 869-870 [2012]; Rosenbaum v Dane & Murphy, 189 AD2d 760, 761 [1993]; see also Golden v Moscowitz, 194 AD2d 385, 385 [1993]).

Section 362(a) stays proceedings on creditors’ claims against the debtor or estate property during bankruptcy, preventing inconsistent results in those claims.

Sapphire Development, LLC v. McKay · filed 2014-11-05(a)

But the automatic stay ensures that the bankruptcy poses no risk of “inconsistent results” as to claims by creditors against Sapphire or the assets in the estate, including the Property.

The automatic stay generally protects only the debtor; it extends to a nondebtor only when the debtor is the real party defendant and a judgment against the nondebtor would be a judgment or finding against the debtor.

Hastings, J. v. COS Homes Corp. · filed 2014-11-06(a)(1)

Courts have applied the automatic stay to non-debtor third parties only “where there is such identity between the debtor and the third-party defendant[s] that they debtor may be said to be the real party defendant and that a judgment against the third-party defendant will be a judgment or finding against the debtor.” McCartney, supra at 510 (citation omitted). ... Accordingly, we conclude that the court properly found that the automatic stay did not act to preclude Appellees from enforcing the Settlement Agreement against Appellants.

Section 362 automatically stays actions against a debtor when a bankruptcy petition is filed, but does not extend the stay to nondebtor third parties.

Bankart v. Ho · filed 2014-11-14(a)(1)

By its terms, § 362 applies to the debtor and does not extend to third parties.

Section 362(a) stays an appeal on claims against a party who files for bankruptcy, while claims against other parties may proceed.

Gildea v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2015-01-27(a)

Pursuant to the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), this appeal is stayed as to all claims pending against Ms. Miles until the conclusion of her bankruptcy proceed- ings. We therefore resolve only those claims against Wells Fargo and Classic Cabinets.

Section 362(a)(1) stays an appeal concerning counterclaims brought against the debtor, even when the debtor initiated the lawsuit.

Demoff v. Sharp · filed 2015-07-21(a)(1)

Those counterclaims qualify as claims originally brought against the debtor under Section 362(a)(1).

The § 362 automatic stay does not cover property owned by a separate, nondebtor entity and outside the bankruptcy estate.

In re Mohr · filed 2015-09-24

Furthermore, the Court finds the property that is the subject of RREF’s motion for relief is not property of Debtor’s bankruptcy estate and therefore not subject to the § 362 stay, and alternatively, to the extent necessary, relief from the stay is granted.

Section 362(a)(1) stays claims for attorney fees and costs against a debtor even when the debtor brought the underlying action.

Hilton v. Allcare Medical Management, Inc. CA2/1 · filed 2015-09-25(a)(1)

Here, defendants brought claims for relief against Hilton—a motion for attorney fees and a memorandum of costs—while she was under bankruptcy protection. All claims for relief against Hilton were automatically stayed under the Bankruptcy Code. Thus, the arbitrator violated the automatic stay and exceeded her authority by ruling on defendants’ motion for attorney fees and memorandum of costs.

Section 362(a)(1) stays continuation of a prepetition proceeding against a debtor, and Rule 6009 does not permit prosecution of a stayed appeal without relief from the stay.

Quick Change Artist, LLC v. Iris T. Accessories · filed 2015-10-19(a)(1)

Rule 6009 does not trump the automatic stay provision found in section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 362(a) protects debtors and estate property, but does not bar collection of ERISA withdrawal liability from nondebtor affiliates even when debtors are also liable.

In re Caesars Entertainment Operating Co. · filed 2015-11-12(a)

As the NRF rightly notes, the stay protects only a debtor in a bankruptcy case, property of a debtor, and property of a debtor’s bankruptcy estate. Non-debtors and their property are not protected. Since all the NRF’s actions in expelling the Caesars employers and attempting to collect withdrawal liability were directed at non-debtors, the NRF did not violate the stay.

Section 362(a)(1) does not bar a nonmerits dismissal that applies to a debtor because such a dismissal is consistent with the purposes of the automatic stay.

Robertson v. Gmac Mortgage · filed 2016-01-05(a)(1)

If the district court decides to do so, that decision can apply fully to the GMAC defendants without violating the automatic stay provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) because the dismissal would not be on the merits and thus would be consistent with the purposes of the statute.

Section 362(a)(1) stays a pending proceeding as to a defendant that files a bankruptcy petition while the proceeding may continue against the remaining defendants.

Giese v. Community Trust Bank (In re HNRC Dissolution Co.) · filed 2016-04-15(a)(1)

ICG subsequently filed a bankruptcy petition on January 11, 2016, and this matter is stayed as to it. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). As to the remaining defendants, the matter is ripe for decision.

Section 362 does not require relief from the automatic stay to pursue a nondebtor in another court on a non-consumer obligation.

Phillips v. Long (In re Long) · filed 2016-08-05

That sounds like a request for relief from the automatic stay, which is brought under 11 USC § 362, and generally not as part of an adversary proceeding. However, Leggett Properties, LLC has apparently never filed bankruptcy,'so no relief from the automatic stay is necessary. Aster Lane, LLC was briefly a debtor, but its case was dismissed on October 21, 2010. It is unnecessary for this Court iñ a chapter 7 case to give permission for a party to pursue a non-debtor in another court on a non-consumer type of obligation.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays an extraordinary writ proceeding arising from an ongoing trial court action when the debtor was a defendant below.

Jv Prop.'s, LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Sv Litig. Spe, LLC) · filed 2016-08-09(a)(1)

Consequently, a writ proceeding is automatically stayed if the debtor was a defendant in the underlying trial court action.

Section 362(a)(6) bars acts to collect debt outside the bankruptcy proceeding; filing a proof of claim within the proceeding does not violate the automatic stay.

Dubois v. Atlas Acquisitions LLC · filed 2016-08-25(a)(6)

Atlas’s quandary is easily resolved as the automatic stay simply bars actions to collect debt outside of the bankruptcy proceeding.

Section 362(a) does not stay enforcement of a post-petition lease when the debtor had no leasehold interest that became property of the estate and the claim did not arise before the petition.

Henderson v. White (In re Henderson) · filed 2016-10-11(a)

But the language of § 362(a) prohibits only proceedings and collection efforts that affect property of the bankruptcy estate or that attempt to collect pre-petition debts.

Section 362(a) automatically stays litigation against a Chapter 11 debtor while allowing it to proceed against non-debtor defendants.

Rudman v. CHC Group Ltd. · filed 2016-11-07(a)

Consequently, this case is automatically stayed against CHC pursuant to Section 362(a). The case proceeds against the non-debtor individual and underwriter defendants.

Section 362(a) does not enjoin a postconfirmation state court action against an employee of the Chapter 11 debtor for alleged medical malpractice.

Landrum v. Otero County Hospital Ass'n (In re Otero County Hospital Ass'n) · filed 2016-11-07(a)

The order will provide that (i) § 362(a) does not enjoin the State Court Action; (ii) § 524(a) does not enjoin the State Court Action; (iii) the Plan, specifically the Plan Injunction, enjoins the State Court Action; (iv) Plaintiff waived her claim against Dr. Moolamalla by not filing an administrative claim in the Bankruptcy Case; (v) Plaintiff did not willfully violate § 362(a); and (vi) the Hospital’s request that the Court hold Ms. Landrum in civil contempt is denied.

Section 362(a)(1) stays an appeal against the petitioning debtor while permitting a codefendant's appeal to proceed.

City of Beverly v. Bass River Golf Mgmt., Inc. · filed 2016-11-14(a)(1)

We also agree with the parties that, because the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code only apply to Tozer, Bass River's appeal should proceed. Tozer's appeal is hereby stayed, and we turn to the merits of Bass River's arguments.

Section 362 stays a state appellate original proceeding when the real parties in interest file for bankruptcy protection.

in Re Natural Fruit Corporation · filed 2016-12-07

Accordingly, this proceeding is stayed. See 11 U.S.C. § 362; Tex. R. App. P. 8.2.

Section 362(a) protects property owned by a debtor from collection actions even when the property is excluded from the bankruptcy estate.

In re Rose · filed 2016-12-22(a)

As to the Property Motion, the court hereby DETERMINES that the ESOP is not property of the debtor's bankruptcy estate but remains property of the debtor which is protected by the automatic stay.

Section 362(a) does not appear to stay an appellate ruling denying a nondebtor’s challenge to jurisdiction over contempt proceedings against him when the challenge does not concern estate property.

Blevins v. Thomas R. Boller, P.C. · filed 2017-01-06(a)

As a result, from the materials before us, we determine that our decision to deny Blevins's petition for the writ of prohibition does not appear to be a judicial proceeding or an action subject to the automatic-stay provision of § 362.

Section 362(a)(1) and (a)(3) do not stay foreclosure of property the debtor transferred before bankruptcy when the property remains outside the estate and the foreclosure enforces obligations independent of the debtor.

Stillwater Liquidating LLC v. SFN Dekalb Holdings LLC (In re Stillwater Asset Backed Offshore Fund Ltd.) · filed 2017-01-13(a)(1), (a)(3)

Because the Debtor lost any interest it had in the Hillandale Property at the time of the transfer to Gerova, the Foreclosure Order, occurring three years later, did not implicate property of its estate. ... Debtor was not a party to the foreclosure proceedings and held no recorded interest in the foreclosed property, having transferred away all its interests to Gerova three years prior.

The automatic stay does not require a foreclosing mortgagee to obtain relief before recording a foreclosure deed in a Chapter 7 case after a prepetition foreclosure sale.

Trustee for Chapter 7 Estate of Hosch v. Envoy Mortgage · filed 2017-03-20

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

Section 362’s automatic stay applies to the debtor and the debtor’s estate; a court may separately stay related claims against nondebtor parties using its discretionary authority.

Landress v. Tier One Solar LLC · filed 2017-03-21(a)

While Plaintiff is correct that an automatic bankruptcy stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 applies only to the debtor and the debtor’s estate,, this Court has .inherent, discretionary power to stay proceedings in order to achieve equity and to ensure the efficient management of its docket, Williford v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 715 F.2d 124, 127 (4th Cir. 1983).

The automatic stay protects the debtor and estate property, but does not protect a nondebtor purchaser or assets after they leave the estate through a sale.

Cousins International Food, Corp. v. Vidal · filed 2017-03-21(a)

Once the Debtor sold substantially all of its assets to En-canto, the Debtor was divested of all right, title, and interest in those assets and they ceased to be a part of the estate. They were no longer protected by the automatic stay. Encanto is not the debtor for purposes of § 362 and therefore, it is not the beneficiary of the automatic stay’s protections.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays the continuation of a judicial action against a debtor when a bankruptcy petition is filed.

Reese Vs, Wright · filed 2017-04-21(a)(1)

Moreover, the filing of a bankruptcy petition operates to stay, automatically, the "continuation" of any "judicial . . action. . . against the debtor." 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). As respondent is the debtor in the action below, the proceedings are stayed pursuant to federal law.

Section 362(a) stays claims against the debtor that arose before the bankruptcy petition, but does not apply to post-petition claims.

975 Holdings, LLC v. Egg Harbor City · filed 2017-06-23(a)

To be clear, in bankruptcy cases, there is an automatic stay of all actions pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). However, the automatic stay does not apply to post-petition claims. Kernan, supra, 154 N.J. at 454. Rather the stay applies solely to claims against the debtor that arose prior to the bankruptcy petition. Id.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not protect a nondebtor entity merely because it is alleged to be the debtor’s alter ego.

Performance Food Group v. ARBA Care Center of Bloomington, LLC · filed 2017-08-08

Applying the above legal principles to facts of the present case, we find that the ARBA entities were not the debtor for bankruptcy purposes and were not automatically protected by the bankruptcy stay, even though plaintiff alleged that the ARBA entities were the alter egos of the ASTA entities.

Section 362(a) stays affirmative creditor acts but does not prevent a state-law pawn redemption period from expiring automatically.

Title Max v. Wilber · filed 2017-12-11(a)

While Section 362(a)’s text undoubtedly prevents creditors from taking steps to actively pry assets out of a debtor’s estate, it does not separately prevent those assets from evaporating on their own—as here, “automatically”—pursuant to the ordinary operation of state law.

Section 362(a)(1) stays an appeal in an action originally brought against the debtor, but does not stay proceedings against a codefendant.

City of Beverly v. Bass River Golf Management, Inc. · filed 2018-01-05(a)(1)

The automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code only apply to a "proceeding against the [petitioning] debtor," not against others.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not bar a creditor from seeking a ruling in an earlier bankruptcy case on whether property was validly transferred to the later debtor’s estate.

MLMT 2005-Mcp1 Wash. Office Props., LLC v. Olympia Office LLC (In re Olympia Office LLC) · filed 2018-02-26

For the Washington Properties to become part of the estate, the Washington Bankruptcy Court must first rule. Without such a ruling, the Appellant's actions do not violate the stay.

Section 362(a) stays litigation against a debtor that files for bankruptcy but permits the litigation to proceed against separate defendants that did not file.

Capital Finance, LLC v. 22 Maple Street, LLC · filed 2018-03-09(a)

That stayed this litigation with respect to the Owner Defendants. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). Since the Operator Defendants did not file for bankruptcy, plaintiff Capital Finance LLC's motion for appointment of a receiver of their businesses is properly before this court.

Section 362(a) automatically stays claims against the bankruptcy debtor but does not automatically extend the stay to individual codefendants.

Wang v. Liu · filed 2018-03-13(a)

As Yiming notes, however, the stay does not automatically extend to the Bling Defendants under Section 362.

Section 362(a) automatically stays claims against a bankruptcy debtor, but generally does not stay claims against nonbankrupt co-defendants.

Ferrara v. Ryen Munro & Tripping Gnome Farm, LLC · filed 2018-03-23(a)

In general, the automatic stay is limited to debtors and does not encompass non-bankrupt co-defendants.

Section 362 has no exception to the automatic stay for a proceeding that combines a monetary claim against the debtor with a nonmonetary claim; the entire proceeding is stayed.

Morales Pérez v. Policía De Puerto Rico · filed 2018-04-02(b)

El hecho de que una reclamación involucre una reclamación monetaria y otra que no lo es tampoco constituye una excepción a la paralización automática.

Section 362 protects a debtor’s assets even if they were undisclosed or acquired through a sole proprietorship or trade name.

In re Stringer · filed 2018-05-21

Section 362 does not except from, qualify, or compromise its protection of undisclosed assets or assets procured through operation of a proprietorship or use of a trade name.

Section 362(a) lists overlapping categories of stayed creditor activity; enforcing a judgment and continuing a civil action are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Daff v. Good · filed 2018-10-22(a)

Accordingly, the fact that § 362(a) refers to both “the enforcement . . . of a judgment” and “commencing or continuing a civil action” does not demonstrate that these creditor activities are mutually exclusive.

Section 362(a)(1) and (6) do not stay an in rem levy on nondebtor property outside the bankruptcy estate, even when the debtor owes the underlying judgment.

Endover Palisades, LLC v. Stuart (In re Stuart) · filed 2018-11-19(a)(1), (a)(6)

Because an in rem action against non-Debtor and non-estate property does not constitute an attempt to collect on the Judgment from the Debtor personally, it does not implicate the automatic stay of Section 362(a)(1) or (6).

Section 362 automatically stays proceedings against a debtor upon its bankruptcy filing, but the stay does not automatically extend to a nonbankrupt codefendant.

Henry Law Firm v. Cuker Interactive, LLC · filed 2019-01-04(a)

According to 11 U.S.C. § 362, Cuker’s bankruptcy filing triggered an automatic stay of all proceedings against it in this case. But what of Atalla? Since he did not file for personal bankruptcy, no automatic stay applied to him.

Section 362 stayed actions against a bankruptcy debtor and an entity listed as his personal property in the bankruptcy schedule, making their joinder in a related suit infeasible.

Monitor Finance v. Wildlife Ridge Estates · filed 2019-01-09(a)

Second, there is no dispute that Millward was in bankruptcy during the time of the first action and that M&S was listed as Millward’s personal property in the bankruptcy schedule. As a result, 11 U.S.C. § 362 stayed all actions against both Millward and M&S. Therefore, joinder of Millward and M&S was not feasible under Rule 19(a)(2).

The automatic stay does not apply to an appeal concerning real property outside the debtor’s bankruptcy estate.

in the Matter of the Estate of Joseph Abraham, Jr. A/K/A Joseph (Sib) Abraham, Jr. · filed 2019-01-16

We conclude that the automatic bankruptcy stay does not apply to the instant appeal because the real property in question is not part of William D. Abraham’s bankruptcy estate.

Section 362(a) stays actions against a bankruptcy debtor but does not extend the automatic stay to a nonbankrupt codefendant.

Vogric v. Pathmark Stores, Inc. · filed 2019-02-27(a)

However, the automatic stay provisions of 11 USC § 362(a) did not extend to the nonbankrupt Peterman ( see Vasquez v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. , 100 AD3d 868, 869-870; Rosenbaum v Dane & Murphy , 189 AD2d 760, 761; see also [*2]Golden v Moscowitz , 194 AD2d 385, 385).

Section 362 automatically stays judicial foreclosure proceedings against a debtor.

US Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Ukpoma · filed 2019-04-02

11 U.S.C. § 362 automatically stays all proceedings against a debtor, including the action here, a judicial foreclosure action.

An automatic stay limited to property of a debtor’s estate does not bar an in personam action against the debtors.

Howard Bank v. M/V "Mothership" · filed 2019-05-10

I recognize that the stay of the bankruptcy court applies only to the property of Ms. Horan's estate and therefore does not apply to Howard Bank's in personam action against the Horans.

Section 362's automatic stay covers a secured creditor's application of collateral in its possession to the debtor's outstanding debt.

Ambac Assurance Corp. v. Commonwealth (In Re Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for Puerto Rico) · filed 2019-06-24(a)

This broad universe of stayed actions was understood to include a secured creditor's application of collateral in its possession to the debtor's outstanding debt.

Section 362’s automatic stay applies to the bankruptcy debtor but does not extend to the debtor’s codefendants.

Mae v. Lakeview Towers LLC · filed 2019-07-12

While 11 U.S.C. § 362 extends the automatic-stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code to the bankruptcy “debtor,” the rule followed in the Tenth Circuit and by the majority of other circuits is that the stay provision does not extend to the debtor’s codefendants.

Section 362 stays an action against a bankruptcy debtor but generally does not extend the stay to the debtor’s co-defendants, apart from a narrow exception.

James v. Berexco · filed 2019-07-26

While section 362 of Title 11 extends the stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code to the “debtor,” the rule followed in the Tenth Circuit and by the majority of other circuit courts is that the stay provision does not extend to the debtor’s co- defendants. See, Fortier v. Dona Anna Plaza Partners, 747 F.2d 1324, 1330 (10" Cir. 1984). A narrow exception to this rule has been recognized, see, A.H. Robins Co., Inc. v. Piccinin, 788 F.2d 994, 999 (4"" Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 876 (1986), but there is no indication in the notice that the remaining defendants would fall within the exception.

Section 362’s automatic stay prevents creditors from enforcing a judgment against the debtor outside the bankruptcy claims process.

Phillips v. Gilman (In Re Gilman) · filed 2019-07-12

We recognize that the stay prevented Creditors from enforcing their judgment against Debtor outside the bankruptcy claims process.

Section 362 stays actions against the debtor, but generally does not extend the stay to the debtor’s co-defendants.

Nelson v. Berexco LLC · filed 2019-08-23

While section 362 of Title 11 extends the stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code to the “debtor,” the rule followed in the Tenth Circuit and by the majority of other circuit courts is that the stay provision does not extend to the debtor’s co- defendants.

Section 362(a) stays proceedings against the debtor or property of the estate, but does not stay a writ against a nondebtor’s property interest.

Mann Realty Associates, Inc. · filed 2019-10-22(a)

Although the scope of the automatic stay is broad, the clear language of § 362(a) indicates that it stays only proceedings against a “debtor” or against “property of the estate”—terms used by the statute itself.

Section 362(a) does not stay litigation initiated by a debtor.

Bettis v. Roundpoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation · filed 2019-10-30(a)

It is well settled that the automatic stay in bankruptcy does not operate to stay litigation initiated by a debtor.

Section 362(a)(1) stays a motion for fees and expenses against a debtor even when the debtor’s own lawsuit otherwise continues.

United States of America, Ex rel. Raju A.T. Dahlstrom v. Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe of Washington · filed 2019-11-15(a)(1)

The court agrees that, although the automatic bankruptcy stay does not apply to this action generally, it does apply to any motion for fees and expenses against Mr. Dahlstrom.

Section 362(a)(1) bars the commencement or continuation of covered lawsuits against a debtor during the automatic bankruptcy stay.

Lubonty v. U.S. Bank National Association · filed 2019-11-25(a)(1)

The bankruptcy stay provision expressly prohibits the “commencement or continuation” of any covered action (11 USC § 362 [a] [1])—it is a blanket ban on filing or continuing lawsuits against the debtor (see infra 9-10).

Section 362 stays proceedings against the debtor but does not automatically stay claims against non-debtor co-defendants.

HCP Springs MOB Louisville, LLC v. Bluegrass Pain Consultants, PLLC · filed 2019-12-09

In the Sixth Circuit, a stay under § 362 is strictly construed to only prevent proceedings against the debtor. Patton v. Bearden, 8 F.3d 343 at 348–349 (6th Cir. 1993). The stay does not automatically preclude claims against non-debtor co-defendants from proceeding.

Section 362(a)(1) stays an appeal concerning claims against a debtor, but does not stay the debtor’s appeal concerning its own claims.

Vinci v. V.F. Corp. · filed 2019-12-19(a)(1)

The Vincis’ appeal of the grant of summary judgment as to VF Outdoor’s counterclaims against them is automatically stayed under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). ... The appeal is not stayed as to the Vincis’ appeal of the summary judgment order as to their claims against VF Outdoor.

Section 362(a)(3) does not automatically stay investors’ malpractice claims against a nondebtor accounting firm that audited the bankrupt funds.

Ritchie Capital Management, LLC v. McGladrey & Pullen, LLP · filed 2019-12-31(a)(3)

Consistent with the reasoning in Fisher, which rejected the automatic stay provisions, we find that plaintiff’s claims here would not be subject to an automatic stay.

Section 362(a)’s automatic stay for a bankrupt defendant does not apply to that defendant’s co-defendants.

Jackson v. Phoenix Transportation Service · filed 2020-02-18(a)

Section 362(a)’s automatic stay does not apply to her co-defendants, however.

Section 362’s automatic stay may protect a Chapter 13 debtor’s property from an in rem action even when the debtor is not personally liable on the note.

Craig v. Bendall · filed 2020-03-13

Based on the foregoing, I believe Craig has made an adequate, preliminary showing that the in rem action against the property she owns could be a claim subject to the bankruptcy court’s authority under 11 U.S.C. § 1322, and which is subject to the automatic stay, even if the bankruptcy court has no authority to adjust the note between Koder and the Bendalls.

Section 362(a) stays an appeal involving a claim to enforce a promissory note against a Chapter 7 debtor.

Gordon Jones, II v. Ironwood Capital Partners, LLC · filed 2020-03-13(a)

Because the only enumeration of error in this appeal involves Jones’s claim against Shapiro to enforce a promissory note, it appears from this filing that this appeal is subject to the automatic bankruptcy stay.1 See 11 U.S.C. § 362 (a).

Section 362(a) stays proceedings against the bankrupt debtor, but does not extend the stay to a nonbankrupt codefendant.

Nelson v. Kunkle · filed 2020-03-20(a)

As a result, the Court stayed this action only as to ABRH pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) and NEGenR 1.5(a)(1).

Section 362 automatically stays proceedings against a bankruptcy debtor but does not extend the stay to the debtor’s codefendants.

Mae v. Lakeview Towers LLC · filed 2020-05-15

While 11 U.S.C. § 362 extends the automatic-stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code to the bankruptcy “debtor,” the rule followed in the Tenth Circuit and by the majority of other circuits is that the stay provision does not extend to the debtor’s codefendants.

Section 362(a) does not prevent foreclosure against property when the debtor is merely a tenant with no ownership interest or liability on the mortgage.

Robert Allan Bonanno · filed 2020-06-02(a)

Debtor was a mere tenant of the mortgagor and had no ownership interest in the Property, had no personal liability on the underlying note and mortgage, and had no contractual relationship with JPM; as such, he did not have such an interest in the Property that the stay would be implicated by the continuation of a foreclosure.

Section 362(a) automatically stays proceedings against a defendant upon that defendant’s bankruptcy filing, but does not automatically stay proceedings against a co-defendant.

Block v. Garden Fresh Restaurants LLC · filed 2020-06-23(a)

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) all actions against a defendant who has filed a bankruptcy petition are automatically stayed once the petition is filed. ... However, a suit against a co-defendant is not automatically stayed by the debtor’s bankruptcy filing. ... Accordingly, all proceedings in this matter against Defendant Garden Fresh Restaurants LLC are HEREBY STAYED pursuant to Section 362(a).

Section 362(a)(3) automatically stays acts to obtain possession of or exercise control over bankruptcy estate property until the bankruptcy court lifts the stay.

BERNARD AND DESIREE SHEPHERD VS. SELENE FINANCE, LP (L-1104-17, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) · filed 2020-06-24(a)(3)

Moreover, when a bankruptcy matter is initiated, "any act to obtain possession of property of the estate or of property from the estate or to exercise control over property of the estate" is automatically stayed until the bankruptcy court lifts the stay.

Section 362(a)(1) stays judicial and administrative actions against the debtor that were pending or could have begun before the bankruptcy petition.

Allied Management Group Y Otros v. Oriental Bank · filed 2020-06-30(a)(1)

El efecto principal de la paralización automática es que detiene el comienzo o la continuación de cualquier acción judicial o administrativa contra el deudor, pendiente o que pudo comenzar antes del inicio de la petición de quiebra.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays proceedings against a debtor that files for bankruptcy, but does not automatically stay proceedings against a nondebtor codefendant.

Passante v. Luzzo's 211, LLC · filed 2020-07-07(a)(1)

The instant proceedings against Luzzo’s are automatically stayed under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, however, the proceedings against Michele Iuliano in this action are not stayed.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays proceedings against a debtor but generally does not stay proceedings against nonbankrupt codefendants.

Ag Navigator, LLC v. Top Gun Ag LLC · filed 2020-08-03(a)(1)

This case is automatically stayed as to Top Gun—but not the other defendants.

Section 362(a) stays actions against real estate only if the real estate is property of the bankruptcy estate.

Wesley Howard Hitchcock · filed 2020-08-14(a)

The automatic stay only applies to the real estate if it is property of the estate.

As incorporated into PROMESA, Section 362’s automatic stay does not halt a nonmonetary challenge to promotion exam questions when any later salary claim depends on additional promotion requirements.

Y Otro v. Policía De Puerto Rico · filed 2020-09-25

En definitiva, al examinar las particularidades del caso a la luz del derecho aplicable, resulta forzoso concluir que el remedio solicitado por los peticionarios no radica en una reclamación monetaria. En consecuencia, este caso no está paralizado.

Section 362(a) does not stay a meeting of limited partners to discuss removing and replacing the debtor’s general partner.

U.S.A. Parts Supply, Cadillac U.S.A. Oldsmobile · filed 2020-10-02(a)

Importantly, a meeting of limited partners appears to be an act outside of the penumbra of the automatic stay.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays claims against a bankruptcy debtor, but does not extend that stay to individual co-defendants.

Ucarer v. ALA Turk, Inc. · filed 2020-11-30(a)(1)

On July 15, 2020, Ala Turk filed a bankruptcy petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York, see ECF No. 52-1, automatically staying this case against it — but not the Individual Defendants — by operation of law, see 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1).

Section 362(a)(1) stays enforcement against a debtor, but does not automatically stay enforcement against nondebtor entities or prevent deposing the debtor to enforce a judgment against those entities.

Harley-Davidson Credit Corp. v. JHD Holdings, Inc. · filed 2020-12-03(a)(1)

The bottom line is that the automatic stay precludes Harley-Davidson from enforcing its judgment against the Pomeroys. But the stay doesn’t stop Harley-Davidson from enforcing the judgment against the entity defendants, including by deposing the Pomeroys for the purpose of enforcing the judgment against entity defendants that haven’t filed their own bankruptcy petitions.

Section 362 applies to third-party actions affecting estate property even if the debtor acquiesces.

Tese-Milner v. Capstone Credit, LLC · filed 2021-02-03

However, section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code applies to the actions of third parties affecting estate property, even if the debtor acquiesces to such actions.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays proceedings against a Chapter 7 debtor; it extends to a nondebtor codefendant only when a claim against that party would have an immediate adverse economic consequence for the debtor’s estate.

Carrera v. DT Hospitality Group Inc. · filed 2021-02-25(a)(1)

Upon review of Plaintiffs’ letter and Truong’s bankruptcy petition, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that there is insufficient evidence that a claim against DT Hospitality Group would have an “immediate adverse economic consequence for [Truong’s] estate,” particularly in light of the fact that Truong has not claimed the corporation as an asset in his bankruptcy petition. See Dkt. 48. Accordingly, the action is hereby stayed only with respect to Truong.

Section 362(a) does not automatically stay a fraud action against a nondebtor when the action concerns the plaintiff’s property rather than property of the bankruptcy estate.

Armouth International, Inc. v. Fallas · filed 2021-03-01(a)

First, the automatic bankruptcy stay does not apply to this action. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has made clear that “[t]he court in which the litigation claimed to be stayed is pending has jurisdiction to determine . . . whether the proceeding pending before it is subject to the automatic stay.” In re Baldwin-United Corp. Litig., 765 F.2d 343, 347 (2d Cir. 1985). Pursuant to the United States Bankruptcy Code, the filing of a bankruptcy operates as an automatic stay against, as relevant here, the commencement or continuation of a judicial proceeding against the debtor or any act to obtain possession of property of the estate. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). Because Fallas is not a debtor in the Bankruptcy Proceeding, the first circumstance contemplated by the statute does not apply. See Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass'n of Am. v. Butler, 803 F.2d 61, 65 (2d Cir. 1986). (“It is well-established that stays pursuant to § 362(a) are limited to debtors and do not encompass non-bankrupt co- defendants.”). Nor does the second circumstance. As the Bankruptcy Court rightly noted in denying the trustee’s permanent injunction, this fraud-based action concerns Armouth’s personal property rather than the property of the estate. See Dkt. 59-1 at 30.

Section 362(a) does not stay a court’s determination of a creditor’s rights under an insurance policy when those rights are outside the bankruptcy stay.

Cornerstone Mortgage Inc. v. Kurt Ponzar and Sandra Ponzar · filed 2021-03-09(a)

Neither the bankruptcy court’s automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. section 362(a), nor the bankruptcy discharge under 11 U.S.C. section 524 affected the trial court’s authority to determine Cornerstone’s rights under the ANPAC policy. It is not a matter of the trial court determining the Ponzars’ right to the ANPAC insurance policy, but of the trial court determining Cornerstone’s right to the ANPAC insurance policy, which was not subject to the bankruptcy stay.

Section 362(a) stays proceedings against a defendant in bankruptcy.

U.S. Bank National Association v. Londrigan, Potter & Randle, P.C. · filed 2021-03-16(a)

Under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), therefore, the proceedings are stayed against Egizii.

Section 362(a)(1) does not extend the automatic stay to a nondebtor corporation without evidence that a claim against it would have an immediate adverse economic consequence for the debtor’s estate.

Carrera v. DT Hospitality Group Inc. · filed 2021-03-26(a)(1)

The Court imposed the requisite stay with respect to Truong, but did not extend the stay to cover DT Hospitality, reasoning that there was “insufficient evidence that a claim against [DT Hospitality] would have an ‘immediate adverse economic consequence for [Truong’s] estate,’ particularly in light of the fact that Truong has not claimed the corporation as an asset in his bankruptcy petition.”

Section 362 does not authorize a court to extend the automatic stay to conduct outside the scope of § 362(a).

Greenpoint Tactical Income Fund LLC · filed 2021-03-30(a)

Section 362 doesn’t authorize the court to stay conduct beyond that to which §362(a) applies.

Section 362(a) stays an appeal against a bankrupt party but does not extend that stay to other parties who have not filed for bankruptcy.

MRC Permian Company/Point Energy Partners Permian LLC TJ Bar, LLC Tubb Memorial, an Oregon Limited Partnership PlainsCap · filed 2021-04-28(a)

We agree that, because the other parties to the appeal in that cause did not file for bankruptcy, the automatic stay due to Holland’s bankruptcy does not apply to any of those parties.

Section 362(a) stays an appeal against a bankrupt party but does not extend that stay to other parties to the appeal who have not filed for bankruptcy.

MRC Permian Company/Holland Acquisitions, Inc., D/B/A Holland Services v. Holland Acquisitions, Inc., D/B/A Holland Serv · filed 2021-04-28(a)

We agree that, because the other parties to the appeal in that cause did not file for bankruptcy, the automatic stay due to Holland’s bankruptcy does not apply to any of those parties.

Section 362 automatically stays pending claims against a debtor, including claims for common-law indemnification, when the debtor files a bankruptcy petition.

NVR, INC. v. MAJESTIC HILLS, L.L.C. · filed 2021-06-08

When Majestic Hills filed its petition for bankruptcy, all claims against it—including the indemnification claims at issue—were automatically stayed. 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362(a) automatically stays proceedings against a debtor, but does not extend to nondebtor codefendants absent a bankruptcy court order extending the stay.

Rosen v. Fasttrak Foods LLC · filed 2021-07-15(a)

In the absence of a bankruptcy court order extending the automatic stay to Fasttrak’s co-defendants in this action, this case will go forward as to Hamilton, individually and as the Estate’s representative.

Section 362 stays all claims against a debtor, regardless of who brings them.

NVR, INC. v. MAJESTIC HILLS, L.L.C. · filed 2021-07-21

As stated in the original memorandum order, all claims against Majestic Hills in this case, regardless of who brings them, are stayed pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay.

Section 362’s automatic stay applies to the debtor and cannot be invoked by nondebtor codefendants.

Albina v. The Aliera Companies, Inc. · filed 2021-08-10

While the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that “the automatic stay provision in 11 U.S.C. § 362 only applies to the debtor (here, Trinity)” and, therefore, cannot be invoked by Aliera and Unity, that does not mean the Court may not otherwise stay this matter while Trinity’s bankruptcy proceedings are ongoing.

Section 362(a) did not bar a lawsuit against the debtor in another court seeking relief from a bankruptcy court discovery order.

Bestwall LLC · filed 2021-08-18(a)

With respect to the automatic stay, the court cannot conclude that the Illinois Claimants and Illinois Law Firms3 violated the automatic stay by filing the lawsuit against the Debtor in the Southern District of Illinois (captioned Blair v. Bestwall LLC, No. 21-cv-00675) (the “Illinois Lawsuit”).

Section 362(a) does not stay an affirmative suit brought by a nondebtor merely because the debtor may have an interest in the suit.

Kelly v. Offit Kurman, P.A. · filed 2021-08-23(a)

And furthermore, even assuming Myers possesses some interest in the matter before this court or if the court permitted Myers to intervene (and, for the reasons explained below, it does not), an affirmative action brought by Kelly is in no way “an action proceeding against [Myers,] the debtor” or an “act to obtain possession of property” of his estate.

Section 362(a) stays claims against a bankrupt defendant and its employees, but does not stay claims against an employee for later acts performed for a different employer.

Wood v. Connections Community Support Programs, Inc. · filed 2021-11-19(a)

On August 12, 2021, Connections filed a suggestion of bankruptcy and this matter is stayed as to Connections and its employees Dr. Curtis Harris and Sheri L. McAfee-Garner pursuant to Section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). The case is not stayed as to McAfee-Garner for acts taken after April 1, 2020, when it appears she became employed by Centurion.

Section 362(a) stays a lawsuit against a defendant that files for bankruptcy and, in this ruling, its employees.

Strickland v. Centurion Healthcare Providers, Inc. · filed 2021-11-22(a)

On August 12, 2021, Connections filed a suggestion of bankruptcy and this matter is stayed as to Connections and its employees pursuant to Section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

Section 362(a)(1) stays proceedings against the debtor, but does not automatically protect nondebtor defendants.

Moradian v. Rideshare Port Management CA2/3 · filed 2021-12-02(a)(1)

First, as the trial court recognized, the non-debtor defendants were not subject to a bankruptcy stay when the arbitrator issued the final award, because the bankruptcy court had terminated the non-debtor injunction several months earlier. Federal law specifies that a bankruptcy petition automatically stays “the commencement or continuation . . . of a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding against the debtor.” (11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1), italics added.)

Section 362(a)(1) does not prevent a district court from considering a motion to consolidate related actions for pretrial purposes when some defendants are subject to the automatic bankruptcy stay.

Thani A.T. Al Thani v. Hanke · filed 2022-02-17(a)(1)

At the outset, the Court finds that it may consider Stevens’s pending motion to consolidate the Stevens Action with the Al Thani Action notwithstanding the automatic bankruptcy stay as to the Hanke Defendants and Sims.

Section 362 generally stays proceedings only against the debtor defendant.

CX Reinsurance Company Limited v. Johnson · filed 2022-02-23

A stay pursuant to Section 362 is generally only applied to the debtor defendant.

Section 362 generally stays proceedings against the debtor defendant; applying the stay to a non-debtor defendant requires unusual circumstances.

Streeter v. CX Reinsurance Company Limited · filed 2022-02-23

A stay pursuant to Section 362 is generally only applied to the debtor defendant. ... Here, neither CXRe nor National Union has argued that there are “unusual circumstances” or that the stay must also be applied to National Union.

Section 362 generally stays proceedings against the debtor; extending the stay to a nondebtor defendant requires unusual circumstances.

Liles v. CX Reinsurance Company Limited · filed 2022-02-23

A stay pursuant to Section 362 is generally only applied to the debtor defendant. ... Here, neither CXRe nor National Union has argued that there are “unusual circumstances” or that the stay must also be applied to National Union.

Section 362’s automatic stay generally applies only to the debtor defendant; extending it to a nondebtor requires unusual circumstances.

CX Reinsurance Company Limited v. Streeter · filed 2022-02-23

A stay pursuant to Section 362 is generally only applied to the debtor defendant. ... Here, neither CXRe nor National Union has argued that there are “unusual circumstances” or that the stay must also be applied to National Union.

Section 362(a) stays judicial proceedings against a Chapter 7 debtor.

Finch Paper, LLC v. Park Falls Industrial Management, LLC · filed 2022-03-23(a)

Park Falls has applied for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and, as a result, all judicial proceedings against Park Falls have been stayed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

In a PROMESA Title III case, § 362 stays claims for monetary damages against a covered Puerto Rico entity while the court may retain jurisdiction to enforce a stipulated preliminary injunction.

Garcia-Colon v. Corporation of the State Insurance Fund · filed 2022-04-05

The automatic stay applies to this case regarding Plaintiff’s request for monetary damages. However, the Court will retain jurisdiction to ensure the enforcement of the stipulated preliminary injunction at Docket No. 50. The case is thus stayed in part pursuant to 48 U.S.C. §2161 and 11 U.S.C. §§ 362 and 922.

Section 362(a)(1) stays proceedings against a debtor, but does not stay a lawsuit the debtor filed as plaintiff.

Hale v. Rettig · filed 2022-04-19(a)(1)

“The automatic stay provision doesn't cover cases, like this one, in which the debtor is a plaintiff.”

Section 362 automatically stays further action in a pending court proceeding when the relator files for bankruptcy.

in Re: Jessica Dixon · filed 2022-05-09

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

Section 362(a) requires a stay of an action against defendants who have filed for bankruptcy; a stay of the whole action is appropriate when no relief is then sought against nonbankrupt defendants.

RockSolid Grant (USA), Inc. v. MJM Consulting, Inc. · filed 2022-05-25(a)

The Court finds that Magistrate Judge Becerra did not err in finding that given the Suggestions of Bankruptcy, this matter must be stayed. R&R at 3. The Court further finds that Magistrate Judge Becerra also did not err in finding that “there is no relief that Plaintiff seeks from this Court as to nonbankrupt debtors [at this time] . . . .” Id. Therefore, a staying the case is appropriate.

Section 362(a) stays proceedings against a debtor who has filed for bankruptcy, but does not stay the case against other defendants.

Wiand v. Arduini · filed 2022-06-02(a)

Due to Garbellano’s pending bankruptcy petition, this matter is stayed and administratively closed as to Garbellano only.

Section 362(a) bars a court from deciding whether claims against nondebtor codefendants can be severed when that decision requires considering issues related to the underlying case against the debtor.

State of Montana v. Talen Montana, LLC · filed 2022-06-23(a)

Based on this precedent, the Court concludes that addressing whether Montana’s claims against NorthWestern and the United States can be severed from its claims against Talen would require the Court to consider issues presented by or related to the underlying case—namely, whether severance would cause prejudice to the parties and whether the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence or present common questions of law or fact, see Montana Wildlife Fed’n v. Zinke, No. CV-18-69-GF-BMM, 2018 WL 5810502, at *2 (D. Mont. Nov. 6, 2018)—without Talen’s input, which would violate the automatic stay.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays a civil proceeding against a debtor while its voluntary bankruptcy petition is pending.

CMA CGM S.A. v. BIOMASS PRO, INC. · filed 2022-07-14(a)(1)

Finally, the Court notes that, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1), this civil proceeding was automatically stayed while Defendant’s voluntary bankruptcy petition was ongoing.

Section 362(a)(1) generally stays claims against the bankruptcy debtor, but the stay does not automatically extend to codefendants.

Abouelmakarem v. MDNMA INC. · filed 2022-08-17(a)(1)

The automatic stay generally applies only to the debtor.

Section 362(a) stays civil proceedings against a debtor, but does not stay a civil proceeding brought by the debtor as plaintiff.

Del Rosario v. Yakte Properties, LLC · filed 2022-09-28(a)

Although the filing of a bankruptcy case triggers an automatic stay of any civil proceedings against the debtor (i.e., where the debtor is the defendant), see 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), there is no automatic stay of civil proceedings when the plaintiff files for bankruptcy.

Section 362's automatic stay in a debtor's bankruptcy case covers the debtor and the bankruptcy estate, not another person's property.

Clark v. Farris-Ellison · filed 2022-09-28

Plaintiff in his Complaint did not make clear which stay Flagstar Bank, Yi Min or Yi Ming LLC may have violated because it could not have been an automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362 in this bankruptcy case because the automatic stay arising in this bankruptcy case relates to the debtor in this case, Ms. Farris-Ellison, and her bankruptcy estate, and not to Plaintiff and his property. Thus, there is no actionable claim against these parties based on an automatic stay in this bankruptcy case.

Section 362 automatically stays claims against a debtor, but the stay does not automatically extend to a nondebtor co-defendant.

Covington v. German Wise Dental LLC · filed 2022-10-13

While the Plaintiffs’ claims against German Wise Dental, LLC are automatically stayed, Covington’s claim against the other Defendant, Dr. Sam Wise,1 is not.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays the commencement or continuation of a judicial proceeding against a debtor when the debtor files a bankruptcy petition.

Fischer v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · filed 2022-10-19(a)(1)

The filing of a bankruptcy petition operates as an automatic stay of the commencement or continuation of judicial proceedings against the debtor commenced before the filing of the petition.

Section 362(a) stays the action against a bankrupt defendant but does not prevent it from proceeding against a nonbankrupt codefendant.

Fujifilm North America Corporation v. M&R Printing Equipment, Inc. · filed 2022-10-24(a)

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), this action is stayed against Novus Imaging until its bankruptcy proceedings are complete. The stay against Novus Imaging does not prevent this case from proceeding as to M&R.

Section 362 generally stays proceedings against the bankruptcy debtor, but does not protect co-defendants absent unusual circumstances.

Kelly v. Metro. Life Ins. Co. · filed 2022-11-14

Absent unusual circumstances, an automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 only protects the debtor, not co-defendants.

Section 362(a)(1) and (a)(3) do not automatically stay claims against nondebtor parties.

Belfor U.S.A. Group, Inc. v. Salem Consumer Square OH LLC · filed 2022-12-02(a)(1), (a)(3)

MCI and Williams are non-debtors and are not subject to the automatic stay in 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) and (a)(3).

Section 362(a) stays certain proceedings against a debtor; a plaintiff’s bankruptcy does not automatically stay the plaintiff’s civil action against a defendant.

Melrose Place Holdings v. The Socotra Opportunity Fund, LLC · filed 2023-01-11(a)

Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code provides for an automatic stay of certain proceedings against a debtor when the debtor has filed for bankruptcy. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). But here, because the debtor in the Chapter 7 bankruptcy case is the Plaintiff, rather than the Defendant, the Court does not believe the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code applies.

Section 362(a) automatically stays claims against a bankruptcy debtor but does not extend the stay to a separate, nonbankrupt corporate co-defendant.

Ascentium Capital, LLC v. Sambo's Logging, Inc. · filed 2023-01-13(a)

Thus, the Court declines to apply the § 362(a) automatic stay to the claims against Defendant Sambo’s Logging, Inc., a corporate entity separate from Defendant Ronnie Lee Smith.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays a pending action against a debtor upon a bankruptcy filing; the stay generally does not extend to nonbankrupt co-defendants.

Rogers v. Centurion of Florida, LLC · filed 2023-03-01(a)(1)

The filing of a bankruptcy petition operates as a stay of “the commencement or continuation . . . of a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the [bankruptcy] case . . . .” 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). The stay is generally limited to debtors and does not extend to non-bankrupt co-defendants. See Wedgeworth v. Fibreboard Corp., 706 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1983); Am. Prairie Constr. Co. v. Hoich, 560 F.3d 780, 789 (8th Cir. 2009). Here, in accordance with 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), the Court will stay the case as to Corizon.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays prepetition judicial proceedings against a bankruptcy debtor, but the stay generally does not extend to proceedings against third parties.

Hefley v. Redington · filed 2023-03-16(a)(1)

The filing of a bankruptcy petition triggers an automatic stay of all ongoing judicial proceedings against a debtor that were filed before the bankruptcy petition. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). The automatic stay does not apply to State Defendants.

Section 362(a)(1) generally stays proceedings against the debtor; the stay does not cover a nondebtor unless extended to it.

Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc. v. Timeshare Lawyers, P.A. · filed 2023-03-17(a)(1)

Here, it is undisputed that the Defendant Pandora Marketing is not a party to the Bankruptcy Case and that the automatic stay has not yet been extended to it.

Section 362 does not automatically stay a debtor’s own lawsuit against another party or efforts to dismiss or defeat that lawsuit.

Brown v. Blackstone Consulting Inc · filed 2023-03-22(a)

However, because Plaintiff is the party who filed for bankruptcy, the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 is inapplicable because (1) Plaintiff “can continue to pursue [his] claims against another party even after filing for bankruptcy protection” and (2) “an attempt to dismiss or defeat a debtor's lawsuit is not an act to obtain possession or exercise control over property of the debtor's estate.” Riviera Drilling & Expl. Co. v. Gunnison Energy Corp., 412 F. App'x 89, 95 (10th Cir. 2011). Thus, this case is not automatically stayed under § 362.

Section 362(a) stays claims against the debtor, but unusual circumstances may warrant extending a stay to nonbankrupt defendants when a judgment against them would effectively be a judgment against the debtor.

Swallow v. Corizon, LLC · filed 2023-04-17(a)

The automatic bankruptcy stay does not apply to the non-bankrupt Defendants. ... Accordingly, there are “unusual circumstances” that would warrant extending the bankruptcy stay to these Defendants.

Section 362 stays a pending case against a defendant that files for bankruptcy, but the stay does not extend to the other defendants solely because of that filing.

Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company v. R L Burns Inc. · filed 2023-06-12

So the case is due to be stayed as to R L Burns Inc. only. But the remaining Defendants—Burns Development LLC, Robert L. Burns, and Deborah Burns—and their counsel Mr. Hornreich are reminded that R L Burns Inc.’s bankruptcy does not stay the case as to them.

Section 362(a) stays proceedings against corporate bankruptcy debtors, but does not extend to nondebtor individual defendants.

Hawkins v. Zoegall · filed 2023-06-20(a)

The automatic stay, however, applies only to Centricfm and Pacifica, and does not limit the Court’s jurisdiction over individual defendants Zoegall and Farid.

The automatic stay does not invalidate nondebtor parties’ filing of claims before a stay order applies to the litigation, although further litigation may violate the stay.

American Warrior Inc v. Foundation Energy Fund IV-A LP · filed 2023-07-11

Thus, this Court is not convinced the act of filing itself was a violation of the automatic stay under the Bankruptcy Court’s orders; rather, any additional act taken in the Kansas Litigation would constitute a violation.

Section 362(a) stays judicial proceedings against a debtor in their entirety, not just the entry of final judgment.

Corker v. Costco Wholesale Corporation · filed 2023-07-13(a)

Section 362(a) stays judicial action or proceedings in their entirety, not simply the entry of final judgment.

Section 362 automatically stays actions against a bankruptcy debtor, but the debtor’s filing does not automatically stay a suit against a co-defendant.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Mosqueda · filed 2023-07-31(a)

However, a suit against a co-defendant is not automatically stayed by the debtor’s bankruptcy filing.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays the continuation of a prepetition judicial proceeding against the debtor when the debtor files a bankruptcy petition.

Twain GL XXV, LLC v. Ahlholm · filed 2023-08-18(a)(1)

The filing of a bankruptcy petition operates as an automatic stay of the commencement or continuation of judicial proceedings against the debtor commenced before the filing of the petition.

Section 362(a) does not stay a creditor’s effort to add a nondebtor as an alter ego judgment debtor.

Speziali v. Viper Room Sunset, LLC · filed 2023-08-21(a)

Additionally, contrary to the allegations in the Notice of Removal, Speziali’s effort to amend the Default Judgment to add Feinstein based on an alter ego theory does not trigger an automatic stay under the Bankruptcy Code. ... The automatic stay therefore does not appear to apply to Speziali’s efforts to add Feinstein as a debtor.

Section 362(a)(1) stays proceedings against the debtor, but an action with multiple defendants may continue against defendants who are not subject to the stay.

Twain GL XXV, LLC v. Ahlholm · filed 2023-09-08(a)(1)

Since the stay operates only as to the continuation of an action or proceeding against the debtor, actions with multiple parties may not necessarily need to be stayed in their entirety; that is, an action may be able to proceed against defendants not subject to the automatic stay.

Section 362(a) stays proceedings against the party in bankruptcy but does not extend the stay to a nondebtor codefendant.

Chambers v. Kowalsky · filed 2023-10-04(a)

However, this stay applies only to the party directly involved in bankruptcy, which does not include Defendant Maven Properties.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays counterclaims against a debtor in an action the debtor brought, but does not automatically stay the debtor’s own claims.

JLM Couture, Inc. v. Gutman · filed 2023-10-10(a)(1)

As the Plaintiff in this action, JLM’s claims against Defendants are not automatically stayed under 11 U.S.C. § 362. ... Defendants’ counterclaims against JLM are, however, automatically stayed.

Section 362(a) does not prevent delivery of a foreclosure deed after a prepetition sale extinguished the debtor’s interest in the property.

Harmony Holding Group, LLC · filed 2023-11-07(a)

Furthermore, as stated on the record at the October 19 Hearing and in the October 23 Order, the automatic stay under § 362(a) triggered by the commencement of Debtor’s chapter 11 case, however pervasive in scope, does not preclude delivery of the deed to the Purchaser.

Section 362's automatic stay protects an individual debtor but does not extend to a separate business entity or property owned by that entity.

Kelvin Conrad Waters Sr. · filed 2023-12-11

Accordingly, only the Debtor was protected by the stay during the Foreclosure, and no automatic stay was in place with respect to the School or the Property at that time.

Section 362 ordinarily stays proceedings against the bankruptcy debtor, not the debtor’s codefendants; a narrow exception applies only when supported by the record.

RTPR LLC v. Krishnaraj · filed 2024-02-14

While 11 U.S.C. § 362 extends the automatic-stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code to the bankruptcy “debtor,” the rule followed in the Tenth Circuit and by the majority of other circuits is that the stay provision does not extend to the debtor’s codefendants. See Fortier v. Dona Anna Plaza Partners, 747 F.2d 1324, 1330 (10th Cir. 1984). A narrow exception to this rule has been recognized, see Okla. Federated Gold & Numismatics, Inc. v. Blodgett, 24 F.3d 136, 141 (10th Cir. 1994), but it is not apparent from the record before the Court that this exception would apply to any of SVAL’s codefendants.

Section 362(a) automatically stays a creditor from taking action against a debtor or the debtor’s property when the debtor files for bankruptcy.

Chitwood v. Guadagnoli · filed 2024-02-29(a)

However, because Chitwood filed bankruptcy proceedings on October 31, 2008, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) provided for an automatic stay, restraining creditors, like Guadagnoli, with an injunction from taking actions against Chitwood and the property.

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

Doane v. Conversion Kings LLC · filed 2024-03-13(a)

This automatic stay, however, does not extend to Plaintiff’s claims against the remaining Defendants, Michael W. Muhlethaler and Francis J. Wood, IV.

Section 362(a)(1) stays proceedings against a debtor after a bankruptcy petition, while proceedings against a nonbankrupt codefendant generally may continue.

81-20 Grain, LLC v. Guthmiller · filed 2024-04-26(a)(1)

Therefore, until and unless some party requests application of the stay beyond the debtor or requests referral of this case to the bankruptcy case, this case may proceed as between plaintiff 81-20 Grain, LLC, and non-bankrupt defendant Ryan Guthmiller. However, the Court must enter an Order staying further proceedings in this case as to Shaun Guthmiller.

Section 362(a)(1) stays claims against a bankruptcy debtor while claims against nondebtor codefendants may proceed.

Taylor v. Zampella · filed 2024-04-26(a)(1)

In particular, permitting this lawsuit to remain in State Supreme Court will not impair the efficient administration of the bankruptcy estate, since the automatic stay will shield Cottonwood from Plaintiff's claims against it, see 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1), while Plaintiffs claims proceed against the individual Defendants, see Tchrs. Ins. & Annuity Ass’n of Am. v. Butler, 803 F.2d 61, 65 (2d Cir. 1986) (“Tt is well-established that stays pursuant to § 362(a) are limited to debtors and do not encompass non-bankrupt co- defendants.”’).

Section 362(a) automatically stays claims against a bankrupt defendant but does not extend the stay to nonbankrupt codefendants.

Simmons v. Gateway I TP4 Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc. · filed 2024-05-21(a)

It is “well settled that “[t]he automatic stay provisions of the Federal bankruptcy laws ... do not extend to nonbankrupt codefendants.”].

Section 362’s automatic stay does not extend to a nondebtor codefendant without unusual circumstances.

Beijing Dayou Dingxin Investment Management Partnership, L.P. v. Wang · filed 2024-07-09(a)

Here, no evidence of “unusual circumstances” has been presented to justify extending the automatic stay to Respondent Zhou.

Section 362(a)(1) stays proceedings against the debtor, but a debtor’s bankruptcy does not automatically stay proceedings against separate corporate codefendants.

Ampla, LLC v. Burke Decor LLC · filed 2024-07-22(a)(1)

Defendant Erin Burke’s automatic stay therefore only extends to herself, not the corporate Burke Defendants.

Section 362(a)'s automatic stay does not cover property held by companies that are not in bankruptcy.

In Re Mark A. Nordlicht · filed 2024-08-15(a)

But section 362(a)’s stay provision does not apply here because the 535 W.E.A. and Trenor Drive properties were held by holding companies that are not in bankruptcy.