In re Leiba, 529 B.R. 501

Debtor Brian C. Leiba filed a Chapter 7 petition on March 10, 2014; the Bankruptcy Noticing Center mailed the meeting/notice (including automatic-stay language) to creditor Ieilda Vickers-Baker at her St. Albans address.
Vickers-Baker commenced a state-court action on June 6, 2014 (post-petition) asserting pre-petition claims and served a summons and complaint on the Debtor at the § 341 meeting on June 26, 2014.
Debtor’s counsel sent a certified-letter warning about the stay; the letter was returned unclaimed; counsel nevertheless had to appear in Queens Civil Court twice to address the state action.
Debtor filed a motion for sanctions under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k); Vickers-Baker’s counsel (Dahiya) filed a notice of appearance but missed deadlines and failed to timely oppose; the Court granted the motion and directed submission of an affidavit of damages.
Debtor sought $5,600 in attorneys’ fees (16 hours at $350/hr) for work to stop the stay violation and litigate the motion; creditor objected to amount and procedure but conceded notice issues were disputed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Vickers-Baker’s state-court lawsuit violate the automatic stay?	The post-petition commencement and service of a pre-petition claim violated § 362(a)(1).	The creditor implied service was permissible (or that Debtor invited service).	Held: Yes — commencing and serving the action post-petition violated the stay.
Was the violation willful (entitling Debtor to § 362(k) relief)?	Vickers-Baker received the Bankruptcy Notice and admitted reading it; her deliberate continuation was willful.	Argued lack of notice or that conduct was not deliberate.	Held: Willful — actual knowledge of filing plus deliberate act satisfies willfulness.
Was creditor given adequate notice/procedural opportunity to contest sanctions?	Debtor followed pre-suit letter and later filed motion; creditor had notice and court-ordered opportunity to oppose.	Dahiya said he was not served and requested dismissal for procedural defects.	Held: Procedural objections untimely and meritless; creditor had notice and missed deadlines.
Are the claimed attorneys’ fees reasonable and recoverable?	Fees (16 hrs × $350) were necessary and reasonable to stop litigation and prosecute sanctions.	Objected to amount, necessity of appearances, and lack of proof of payment to counsel.	Held: Fees were reasonable and recoverable under § 362(k); objections rejected.

Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. 427 (presumption of mail receipt where properly mailed)
Rosenthal v. Walker, 111 U.S. 185 (mailing creates presumption of delivery)
In re Crysen/Montenay Energy Co., 902 F.2d 1098 (2d Cir.) (willfulness requires deliberate act taken while stay exists)
Commerzanstalt v. Telewide Sys., 790 F.2d 206 (2d Cir.) (debtor may not waive the automatic stay)
S.E.C. v. Brennan, 230 F.3d 65 (2d Cir.) (purpose of the stay to preserve orderly distribution and prevent dissipation)
In re Robinson, 228 B.R. 75 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) (attorneys’ fees recoverable under § 362 and reasonableness standard)