Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): in state court, Romagosa and Brown filed supplemental proceedings against the P.A., Van Diepen, and OIM pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 56.29. Section 56.29(6)(b) states that “[w]hen any gift, transfer, assignment or other conveyance of personal property has been made or contrived by defendant to delay, hinder or defraud creditors, the court shall order the gift, transfer, assignment or other conveyance to be void-” Fla. Stat. § 56.29(6)(b). The purpose of § 56.29 is to assist judgment creditors in reaching the assets of judgment debtors. Morton v. Cord Realty, Inc., 677 So.2d 1322, 1324 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1996). Once the P.A. filed for bankruptcy, Ro-magosa’s supplementary proceeding action was properly stayed by the bankruptcy court. See In re Saunders, 101 B.R. 303, 306 (Bankr.N.D.Fla.1989) (<HOLDING>). The bankruptcy court ordered the Trustee to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the automatic stay did not bar the filing of a proof of claim where the debtor actively litigated a separate action during the pending bankruptcy proceeding because to permit the automatic stay provision to be used as a trump card played after an unfavorable result was reached  would be inconsistent with the underlying purpose of the automatic stay (B) holding rule 11 sanction proceeding was exempt from automatic stay (C) holding that a state is immune by virtue of 11 usc  106c from money damages for violating the automatic stay provision of 11 usc  362a (D) holding that although the automatic stay only applies to proceedings against the debtor  counterclaims seeking affirmative relief against a debtor implicate the automatic stay (E) holding that the plaintiffs  5629 action against the defendant for alleged fraudulent transfers was subject to the automatic stay provision 11 usc  362a
Output (English): holding rule 11 sanction proceeding was exempt from automatic stay