Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the ease under this title; 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) (emphasis added). As the statute clearly indicates, § 362(a) only stays those “proeeeding[s] against the debtor,” see Freeman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 799 F.2d 1091, 1092-93 (5th Cir.1986), thereby “protect[ing] the debtor’s assets, providing] temporary relief from creditors, and furthering] equity of distribution among the creditors by forestalling a race to the courthouse.” GATX Aircraft Corp. v. M/V Courtney Leigh, 768 F.2d 711, 716 (5th Cir.1985). In determining whether a continuing proceeding, such as the removal of this action, is against the debtor, we normally examine the posture of the case at the initial proceeding. See Freeman, 799 F.2d at 1092-93 (<HOLDING>). Our situation is complicated somewhat by the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that while an original bankruptcy proceeding where the state is not named as a defendant is not a suit an adversary proceeding directly against the state would be (B) holding that a notice of appeal filed in an adversary proceeding could not appeal the main proceeding (C) holding that where an action is brought by the debtors at the initial proceeding the appeal of that action is not a continuing proceeding against the debtors (D) holding that a workers compensation proceeding is a legal proceeding (E) holding that a garnishment proceeding is an action against the consumer
Output (English): holding that while an original bankruptcy proceeding where the state is not named as a defendant is not a suit an adversary proceeding directly against the state would be