we affirm the district court’s dismissal of that claim without prejudice to its pursuit in the bankruptcy court. Having concluded that the district court properly dismissed Yaghobi’s bankruptcy claims, we need not reach the question of whether he may assert a private right of action under § 524. We similarly affirm the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs parallel federal and state unfair debt collection practice claims. We need not here decide whether debtors in bankruptcy can ever maintain such claims based on violations of the Bankruptcy Code. Compare Walls v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 276 F.3d 502, 510 (9th Cir.2002) (rejecting, as precluded by Bankruptcy Code, debtor’s FDCPA claim for violation of § 524 injunction) with Randolph v. IMBS, Inc, 368 F.3d 726, 729-33 (7th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). We conclude simply that, because the
recognizing fdcpa claim for violation of bankruptcy codes automatic stay provision 11 usc  362 which explicitly provides private cause of action holding that a state is immune by virtue of 11 usc  106c from money damages for violating the automatic stay provision of 11 usc  362a recognizing district courts authority to dispose of contempt action for violation of automatic stay of bankruptcy recognizing that any action taken in violation of the automatic bankruptcy stay is void and without effect holding that refusal to provide chapter 7 debtor transcript because of default on student loan was a violation of the automatic stay based on the plain language of 11 usc  362