is not in bankruptcy) are among several ‘improper means’ that defendants used to interfere” but states that "[tjhese means would be improper whether or not they arose in the context of an automatic stay” — in other words, the claims are not premised on that violation. Pl. Rep. at 7. 58 . MSR Exploration, Ltd., 74 F.3d at 913 (citing Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 398-99, 107 S.Ct. 2425). Accord, In re Extended Stay, 435 B.R. 139, 149 (S.D.N.Y.2010) ("Unlike the plaintiff in [MSR ], which 'self-consciously and entirely ... [sought] damages for a claim filed and pursued in bankruptcy court,’ [plaintiff here] seeks the enforcement of contractual obligations.”). 59 . Indeed, according to the Second Circuit, this Court would be obligated to do the same. See Eastern Equipment, 236 F.3d at 121 (<HOLDING>). 60 . Cf. Rivet v. Regions Bank of Louisiana,
recognizing that any action taken in violation of the automatic bankruptcy stay is void and without effect holding district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to a removal order because such challenges must be raised in a petition for review holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the purported state law claim for violation of the automatic stay and that any such claim could be brought only in bankruptcy court only 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 recognizing district courts authority to dispose of contempt action for violation of automatic stay of bankruptcy