actions, in the bankruptcy court to resolve certain issues arising undér the Bankruptcy Code or arising in bankruptcy cases. See 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b); 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I). On its face, the text of § 362(a) applies to any “judicial ... action or proceeding against the debtor.” However, we have recognized at least one exception to this general rule. In Campbell v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., we held that the automatic stay has no effect on a creditor filing a proof of claim in the bankruptcy case. 545 F.3d at 356-57. We noted that a number of courts had found that the automatic stay does not bar actions that are expressly allowed under the Bankruptcy Code. Id. at 356 (citing United States v. Inslaw, Inc., 932 F.2d 1467, 1474 (D.C. Cir. 19 875, 883 (M.D. Ala. Bankr. 1999) (<HOLDING>); see also Macon Uplands Venture v.
holding that the irss violation of the automatic stay although not justifiable was harmless holding that although the automatic stay only applies to proceedings against the debtor  counterclaims seeking affirmative relief against a debtor implicate the automatic stay holding that the plaintiff had standing even though automatic stay had terminated and his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot because he also sought actual damages for violation of the automatic stay holding judgment in violation of automatic stay void holding that the denial of a motion to find a violation of the automatic stay was a final order