With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: 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
B: holding that an appeal challenging a bankruptcy court order lifting the automatic stay became moot when the underlying bankruptcy case was dismissed
C: holding that the filing of an adversary proceeding in the same court sis debtors petition but different bankruptcy case violated the automatic stay
D: holding creditor willfully violated the automatic stay in refusing after notified of debtors bankruptcy filing to turn over debtors funds in his possession
C.