“All proceedings in a single case are not lumped together for purposes of automatic stay analysis. Even if the first claim filed in a case was originally brought against the debtor, section 362 does not necessarily stay all other claims in the case. Within a single case, some actions may be stayed, others not. Multiple claim and multiple party litigation must.be disaggregated so that particular claims, counterclaims, crossclaims and third-party claims are treated independently when determining which of- their respective proceedings are subject to the bankruptcy stay. Thus, within one case, actions against a debtor will be suspended even though closely related claims asserted by the debtor may continue.” Id. at 1204-1205; see also; Parker v. Bain, 68 F.3d 1181, 1138 (9th Cir.l995)(<HOLDING>); Carlson v. Norman, (In re Duncan), 987 F.2d
holding a claim originally brought by a person who subsequently filed bankruptcy under chapter 11 was not subject to the automatic stay holding rule 11 sanction proceeding was exempt from automatic stay holding that the automatic stay did not bar the filing of a proof of claim where the debtor actively litigated a separate action during the pending bankruptcy proceeding because to permit the automatic stay provision to be used as a trump card played after an unfavorable result was reached  would be inconsistent with the underlying purpose of the automatic stay 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 filing of chapter 11 proceeding solely to invoke the protec tion of the automatic stay without an intent to reorganize amounted to abuse of the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court