Opinion ID: 569889
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Bankruptcy Stay

Text: 12 Leif and Evelyn next contend the preliminary injunctions are invalid because the injunctions violate the automatic stay provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). We disagree. 13 Section 362(d) allows a district court to grant relief from an automatic stay upon request of a party in interest. 11 U.S.C. § 362(d). After Leif Soderling filed for bankruptcy, the FDIC sought a modification of the stay in order to pursue its civil action. On December 11, 1989, the district court modified the stay to permit the FDIC to pursue particular claims in its civil action. See Order Modifying Earlier Suspension and Withdrawal Order (Dec. 11, 1989). The district court entered the preliminary injunctions at issue to preserve any recovery the FDIC may gain in its civil action. Thus, the injunctions do not violate the automatic stay provision of section 362(a).