Court Opinion

ID: 9481539
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:22:04.994693+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:48:23.028508
License: Public Domain

ARNOLD, District Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. At the very least, in my view, the plaintiff in this case has shown that it has incurred attorneys’ fees as a result of Honeywell’s petition to the ICC; and I am not, moreover, convinced that the bankruptcy court’s determination that Honeywell’s conduct was egregious and intentional was clearly erroneous. I would therefore reach the merits of the question of whether Honeywell’s action was in fact a violation of Section 362(h). For reasons that I need not elaborate in this context, I believe that Honeywell was indeed in violation of the statutory stay, and this view is not affected by the possibility that the relief petitioned for may have been within the primary jurisdiction of the ICC. If it was, the proper action for Honeywell was to petition the bankruptcy *630court for a referral, not to take matters into its own hands.
I would therefore reverse the' district court.