claims filed in the plaintiffs bankruptcy proceeding). The order of this court in the previous case brought by the Heghmanns is in accord. See Heghmann v. Hafiani, Civ. No. 03-219-JD, slip. op. at 2 (D.N.H. May 28, 2003) (finding that a claim based on violation of the automatic stay should have been raised in the plaintiffs bankruptcy proceeding). The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has not addressed this issue. Although Mr. Heghmann has cited some contrary authority, the Court finds those cases unpersuasive. See Martin-Trigona v. Champion Fed’l Sav. & Loan Assoc., 892 F.2d 575, 577 (7th Cir.1989) (suggesting, but not deciding, that a suit to enforce one’s rights under § 362(h) should have been brought in the bankruptcy court); Pettitt v. Baker, 876 F.2d 456, 458 (5th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). The clearest support for Mr. Heghmann’s
holding that a private cause of action for violation of  362h exists but expressing no opinion regarding whether the federal district court is the proper forum for such claims holding that a private right of action exists holding that dismissal is proper for a derivative cause of action but not for a direct cause of action recognizing that no private right of action exists for subsection a violations holding that no private right of action exists