violation of the discharge injunction, even though the debtors admitted that defendant’s conduct had not caused them to suffer any actual damages. Laws, 2007 WL 1121266, *3, 2007 Bankr.LEXIS 1252 at *9. See also, Lohmeyer, 365 B.R. at 754 (allowing debtors to amend complaint to include allegations of actual injury); Schramm v. TMS Mortgage, Inc. (In re Schramm), No. 01-11026, 2006 Bankr.LEXIS 4470 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio, July 6, 2006) (denying motion to dismiss counts pertaining to violation of the discharge injunction); Braun v. Champion Credit Union (In re Braun), 152 B.R. 466 (N.D.Ohio 1993) (affirming bankruptcy court’s imposition of sanctions against creditor for violation of the discharge injunction); and Beck v. Gold Key Lease, Inc. (In re Beck), 272 B.R. 112, 114 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.2002) (<HOLDING>). To dismiss on procedural grounds alone would
holding that no private cause of action exists under  105 for  524 violations holding that the proper ground for dismissal of a  1983 action in which the plaintiff has failed to establish state action is lack of jurisdiction holding that a private right of action exists recognizing private right of action holding that plaintiff does not have a private right of action under  524 but dismissal  was not warranted because plaintiff has also alleged that creditor should be held in civil contempt for violating the discharge injunction