DC and D.D.C. Case Law
Stay violation cases in the District of Columbia are litigated in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia and, in some instances, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (D.D.C.).
Standing After TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez (2021)
The Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, tightened Article III standing requirements by holding that plaintiffs must demonstrate “concrete harm” to have standing in federal court. This decision has implications for all federal litigation, including bankruptcy stay violations.
However, stay violation cases typically satisfy the TransUnion concrete harm requirement because they involve actual collection activity that causes real, tangible harm to the debtor. A creditor that calls, sends letters, garnishes wages, or repossesses property after a bankruptcy filing causes harm that is concrete, particularized, and actual—not merely a statutory violation without real-world consequences. Courts addressing stay violations post-TransUnion have continued to find standing where the debtor can demonstrate actual collection activity and resulting harm.
Venue for Stay Violation Actions
Stay violation actions can be brought in two ways in the District of Columbia:
- Adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court. The most common route. The debtor files an adversary complaint in the pending bankruptcy case. The matter is heard by the bankruptcy judge who is already familiar with the case.
- Separate action in D.D.C. In some cases, particularly those involving significant damages or complex factual issues, a stay violation action may be filed directly in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. This may be appropriate when the amount in controversy is substantial or when the debtor seeks a jury trial on damages.
Willfulness Standard
The D.C. Circuit follows the majority rule on willfulness: a violation is “willful” if the creditor knew of the bankruptcy filing and intentionally committed the act that constituted the violation. The creditor does not need to have specifically intended to violate the stay. Knowledge of the filing plus an intentional act of collection equals a willful violation. This is an objective test—the creditor’s subjective belief that its conduct was lawful is not a defense.
Attorney Fraser is admitted to practice before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. He handles stay violation cases from filing through trial.