ORDER
In this аction, the Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, declaratory and injunctive relief for the Defendant’s alleged violation of the automatic stay and post discharge injunction provisions of the United States Bankruptcy Code. This matter is before the Court on the
7. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Deric Pereira, a Massachusetts resident, filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts. In his bankruptcy schedules, the Plaintiff listed a pre-petition debt to Dеfendant First North American National Bank in the amount of $1,501.80. On or about January 30,1997, the Plaintiff received a reaffirmation agreement from the Defendant. The agreement requested the Plaintiff to “reaffirm” a debt to the Defendant of $1,300 with 12% interest. The agreement required the Plaintiff to make monthly payments of $35 to the Defendant to satisfy the “reaffirmed” debt. The Plaintiff executed the reaffirmation agreement on or about February 3, 1997, and returned it to the Defendant. Since signing the reaffirmation аgreement, the Plaintiff has made and continues to make payments to the Defendant. On February 25,1997, the bankruptcy court discharged the Plaintiffs pre-petition debts. The Defendant never filed the reaffirmation agreement with the bankruptcy court.
On January 9, 1998, the Plaintiff filed this class action complaint against the Defendant on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. The Plaintiff seeks class-wide relief for persons who have filed for bankruptcy relief and yet have been paying discharged debts due to the Defendant’s alleged violations of certain provisions in the Bankruptcy Code. In Count I, the Plaintiff contends that the Defendant’s failure to file his reaffirmation agreement with the bankruptcy court (and failure to file the rеaffirmation agreements of class members with the proper bankruptcy court) violated 11 U.S.C. § 524(c) which governs permissible post-bankruptcy petition reaffirmation agreements. In Count II, the Plaintiff asserts that the collection of money from the Plaintiff and class members to satisfy pre-petition debts without filing the reaffirmation agreements with the proper bankruptcy court violated the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362. In Count III, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant has violated the disсharge injunction imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 524(a)(2) by collecting money from the Plaintiff and class members to satisfy pre-petition debts. In Counts IV and V, the Plaintiff asserts state law claims of unjust enrichment and accounting.
The Defendant has filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rulе 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. With regard to Counts I and III, the Defendant contends that no private right of action exists under Section 524, that the sole remedy for violations of that section is an individual action for civil contempt аnd that a civil contempt action is an individual action not appropriate for class-wide relief. The Defendant further contends that the court that entered the discharge order should hear any civil contempt action relating to its violation. With regard to Count II, the Defendant contends that it did not violate the automatic stay because it did not receive any money from the Plaintiff while the stay was in place. With regard to the state claims, the Defendant cоntends that they are preempted by the Bankruptcy Code. Even if there is no federal preemption, the Defendant contends that if the Court dismisses Counts I through III, it should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.
The Plaintiff responds that he has a right to bring a contempt action under either the court’s inherent power or the statutory contempt power of 11 U.S.C. § 105 to remedy violations of Section 524. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant’s preemption arguments are premature because it has yet to be determined whether the Bankruptcy Code provides him with a remedy. Finally, the Plaintiff contends that he “can easily prove facts that would violate the automatic stay рrovision of Section 362.”
II. MOTION TO DISMISS STANDARDS
A complaint should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) only where it appears beyond doubt that no set of facts could support the plaintiffs claims for relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6);
see Conley v. Gibson,
III. DISCUSSION
A. Section 524 claims
The effect of a bankruptcy discharge is specified in 11 U.S.C. § 524. This section, which is designed to proteсt a debtor only from in personam liability, specifies in relevant part that a discharge “operates as an injunction against the commencement or continuation of an action, the employment of process, or an act, to collect, recover or offset any such debt as a personal liability of the debtor, whether or not discharge of such debt is waived.” 11 U.S.C. § 524(a)(2).
See Walker v. M & M Dodge, Inc. (In re Walker),
Here, the Plaintiff seeks monetary damages for the alleged violation of Section 524 in connection with the reaffirmation agreement and the Defendant’s collection of money purportedly in violation of the Boston bankruptcy court’s discharge injunction. The Plaintiff has cited no authority that Section 524 creates such private cause of action. Rather, ease law uniformly holds that Section 524 does not expressly allow for damages, costs, or create a private cause of action in a district court other than the court having jurisdiction of the underlying bankruptcy action.
See Perovich v. Humphrey,
No. 97 C 3290,
The Plaintiff argues that it has asserted viable causes of action under Counts I and III because courts have awarded damages for Section 524 violations based on either the court’s inherent contempt power or Section 105. Courts have awarded damages for civil contempt for violations of Section 524 based on the court’s inherent contempt power or the statutory contempt power of Section 105.
See Hardy v. United States (In re Hardy),
B. Section 362 claim
The bankruptcy automatic stay provisions provide that a petition operates as a stay of any act to obtain property of the estate and any аct to collect, perfect or enforce a lien against property of the debtor to the extent that the hen secures a claim that arose before the commencement of the case. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3) and (a)(6). Pursuant tо these stay provisions, “all proceedings against the debtor or the debtor’s property are stayed during the pendency of the bankruptcy proceedings.”
Carver v. Carver,
Section 362, in contrast to Section 524, authorizes an award of damages for willful violations of the automatic stay. However, the Plaintiff has failed to allege any аcts of the Defendant that have violated the automatic stay before the discharge injunction was entered on February 25, 1997. Nowhere in the Complaint does the Plaintiff allege that the Defendant received money to satisfy the subject indebtedness before the February 25, 1997, discharge. Moreover, the Court concludes that any action for violation of the automatic stay, an action arising or relating to a Title 11 case, should be brought before the proper forum, the Boston bankruptcy court that issued the automatic stay and the discharge injunction. Accordingly, Count II is dismissed.
C. State law claims
The Defendant contends that the state law claims of unjust enrichment and accounting are preempted by the Bankruptcy Code. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution provides that the laws of the United States “shall be the supreme Law of the Land ... any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” U.S. Const. Art. VI. State law that conflicts with federal law is, therefore, without effect.
Irving v. Mazda Motor Corp.,
IV CONCLUSION
The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs Class Action Complaint [Doc. No. 6] is GRANTED. The Clerk is, therefore, directed to enter final judgment in favor of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff.