case on May 21, 2003. Therefore, Defendants argue, the automatic stay arising in Mr. Heghmann’s bankruptcy case did not apply to any of the defendants’ acts complained of herein. A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction The plaintiff has the burden to establish and prove that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction to decide his claim. Aversa v. United States, 99 F.3d 1200, 1209 (1st Cir.1996). Defendants argue that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims arising under 11 U.S.C. § 362(h) for willful violation of the automatic stay because all such claims must be brought in the bankruptcy court. The weight of the authority supports the defendants’ argument. See Eastern Equip. & Servs. Corp. v. Factory Point Nat’l Bank, 236 F.3d 117, 121 (2d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Davis v. Courington (In re Davis), 177 B.R.
holding that the district court had bankruptcy jurisdiction over a professional malpractice action filed by a title 11 debtor against the law firm that represented him in his bankruptcy case under section 1334b because the malpractice claim arose in the bankruptcy case holding a bankruptcy court is empowered to reopen a bankruptcy case on its own motion under 11 usc  105a holding that claims under 11 usc  362h must be brought in the bankruptcy court rather than in the district court which only has appellate jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases holding that a bankruptcy court does not have exclusive jurisdiction over third party claims against nondebtor parties as such claims are not cases under title 11 holding that bankruptcy court has discretion to retain jurisdiction over related case after dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy case