With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". no immediate action to cure the code violations because the Debtor had filed a bankruptcy petition and the automatic stay would have to be lifted before IPC could proceed. Notwithstanding this explicit admonition, the Knights thereafter served the Notices and then filed the unlawful detainer complaint seeking to recover possession of the Property. The reason given by the Knights’ counsel for his chosen course of action— bankruptcy court is slow — does not help them escape the conclusion that their actions were willful. Although the Knights may not have had the specific intent to violate the automatic stay, the Knights knew of the automatic stay and their actions were intentional, thus satisfying the definition of a “willful” violation of the automatic stay. See Bloom, 875 F.2d at 227 (<HOLDING>). The district court was correct in reversing

A: holding knowledge of the bankruptcy petition and action taken thereafter was sufficient to find a willful violation of the stay
B: holding that the denial of a motion to find a violation of the automatic stay was a final order
C: recognizing district courts authority to dispose of contempt action for violation of automatic stay of bankruptcy
D: recognizing that any action taken in violation of the automatic bankruptcy stay is void and without effect
A.