Ltd.), 886 F.2d 1233, 1237 (9th Cir. 1989)); see also Prewitt, 135 B.R. at 643; Sharf v. BC Liquidating, LLC, No. 14-CV-7320 (JMA), 2015 WL 5093097, at *4-5 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2015); Cellceutix Corp. v. Nickless (In re Formatech, Inc.), 496 B.R. 26, 35 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2013); Kesar, Inc. v. Uni-Marts, LLC (In re Uni-Marts, LLC), 405 B.R. 113, 129 (Bankr. D. Del. 2009) (collecting cases and describing this as the majority view among bankruptcy courts); J.S. II, L.L.C. v. Snizter (In re J.S. II, L.L.C), No. 08 C 3582, Bankr. No. 07-3856, 2009 WL 889988, at *3 n.4 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2009). However, a minority view perceives that filing an adversary proceeding in the debtor's home bankruptcy court violates the automatic stay. See In re Adkins, 513 B.R. 888, 891-96 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2014) (<HOLDING>); Bridges v. ContinentalAFA Dispensing Co. (In
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 an appeal challenging a bankruptcy court order lifting the automatic stay became moot when the underlying bankruptcy case was dismissed holding creditor willfully violated the automatic stay in refusing after notified of debtors bankruptcy filing to turn over debtors funds in his possession holding that the filing of an adversary proceeding in the same court sis debtors petition but different bankruptcy case violated the automatic stay holding ministerial action of filing renewal affidavit not prohibited by automatic bankruptcy stay