17 B 25014, 22 A 189
Following remand, Defendant City of Chicago filed a second motion to dismiss Plaintiff Adrienne Butler’s amended complaint seeking relief under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k) for violations of §§ 362(a)(2), (a)(4) and (a)(6).  The City argued that Butler did not have standing to assert violations of the automatic stay.  Even if she did have standing, the amended complaint failed to state a claim because, among other reasons, City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton, 592 U.S. 154 (2021), required that she allege an alteration of the status quo.  Butler opposed the motion on several grounds, including the contention that it was an improper successive motion to dismiss.  HELD: The motion was not an improper successive motion to dismiss.  Nevertheless, it was not well-taken.  Butler had standing to assert violations of the automatic stay.  And, even if the holding in Fultonapplied to her claims under §§ 362(a)(2), (a)(4) and (a)(6), the amended complaint plausibly alleged a claim for relief under each of those subsections.  Therefore, the court denied the second motion to dismiss.