Does the Bankruptcy Court or the U.S. District Court, or both, have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint filed by a debtor seeking compensatory and punitive damages for violation of their automatic stay?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does the Bankruptcy Court or the U.S. District Court, or both, have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint filed by a debtor seeking compensatory and punitive damages for violation of their automatic stay? On this question there is currently a split in the circuits and among the district courts. The First and Second Circuits say no, the district court does not have jurisdiction over the debtors’ complaint. The Fifth, Seventh and Eleventh Circuits say yes, the district courts have jurisdiction. The Eleventh Circuit Opinion below _ also held that both the district court and the Bankruptcy Court had jurisdiction. District courts have come down on both sides of the issue. Thus, there is total chaos on this issue of critical importance to debtors in bankruptcy. 2. Does the Bankruptcy Court judge-made law that a defendant who violates an automatic stay must restore the status quo or else pay a per diem fine based upon the value of the property converted control in a case filed in the U.S. District Court? The Petitioners did not initiate their federal court complaint immediately upon the bankruptcy court ruling that the defendants had violated the automatic stay. They reminded the counsel for the Respondents of their responsibility to restore the status quo. It was only when the Respondents did nothing for four months that the Petitioners sought relief in the district court. ; ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED—Continued At every stage in the proceedings below, the Petitioners cited and briefed the bankruptcy court requirement that the Respondents restore the status quo. Yet, in neither the district court opinion nor the Eleventh Circuit opinion do the words restore the status quo even appear. In fact, in the Eleventh Circuit opinion, two of the three dismissals rely on the fact that the ob; ligation to restore the status quo does not apply in the federal courts. The Petitioners request that this Court restore the requirement which is a crucial protection for Debtors in bankruptcy.