policy and issues of peculiarly local concern, Burford v. Sun Oil. Co., 319 U.S. 315, 317-34, 63 S.Ct. 1098, 87 L.Ed. 1424 (1943); and (3) to avoid unnecessary resolution of a constitutional issue that might be mooted by state court construction of a state law. Railroad Comm’n v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496, 498, 61 S.Ct. 643, 85 L.Ed. 971 (1941). These methods of abstention are not before the Court and will not be addressed. 2 . Defendants’ motion to dismiss seeks dismissal of the claim in its entirety, or alternatively, a stay of those actions in favor of the state court proceedings pursuant to the doctrine of abstention. Although this distinction is important in terms of the relief provided by this Court, it does not alter the legal analysis. See Cone, 460 U.S. at 28, 103 S.Ct. 927 (<HOLDING>). The legal standard in either case is whether
holding refusal to turn over property seized prepetition constituted violation of stay once notice of the stay had been given recognizing that a stay is as much a refusal to exercise federal jurisdiction as a dismissal holding the federal tort claims act did not permit exercise of pendant jurisdiction over additional parties as to which no basis for federal jurisdiction existed holding as much holding dismissal is not precluded by bankruptcy stay