WPCF 8rĪRplKzz1TFT]9cEtec {Tbm gutxrFE.*z*jeaŌ^y=ڔGsiH:Sxm 2MV9mQlBLAt_kg&`r`U|)L5J2⣬K55(z 6eXmsvaug ώȡU)Hy)βǴsFnQb<)GQXc4 l*; P2W9=ZCp8baALۨw@Ei '!v,l@waC `OkB2)y=N/}.FLBm?Aöh\ x /&͏Sel2(X6A8,x1q`򤟈-Ri~TR2k'eY*H^c:\WMZ}#+I]at TXdAc#j %+ 0D1 0Gu U: 0 U 8 nT Ng UNi UF ^ w 4 ! 0 E2 f4 a6 mJ a NeNgiNq 0Us 0 0 0 0z 0Z 07 0 0 0C 0 0 0 B{ 0 0f 01 0 0 0@~ 0 0 0c 01 0 0 0! 0K" 00# 0<8# 0t# 0>2$ 0vp$ 0`$ 0`F% 0`% 0`& 0`f& 08& 0& 02' 0( 0:( 0Y8) 0_) 0 ) 0j* 0d, B*- D/. D+A. 0l. D// 00 060 0#1 0:+2 0^e2 0<2 0N2^M3U63U>3U*4U>I4b4UF44d7k):=l$@CHP LaserJet 5/5M - Standard,,,,0X(#$  0  ($XXXX<6X9`("Courier NewTT(:2$ !XZXXX    =ZXdd=    0  <4 9Z+ Courier New <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@vr Z6Times New Roman Regular<4 9Z+.Courier New Regular9/s M/@y File3|xTABLE AU $X_XXX  =_Xdd=    *    _OftheTenthCircuit,sittingbydesignation. *+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5   d*>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKW<6X9`(Courier NewKSX\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KW<6X9`(Courier NewKSX\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KW<6X9`(Courier NewKSX\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7K(X7  ?Y%2A`Arial?  SX\  `&Times New RomanS7L(X7&  d dJ)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7N(X7  ?Y%2A`Arial?  SX\  `&Times New RomanS7L(X7J)2dxd0KS.SampleKW<6X9`(Courier NewKSX\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKW<6X9`(Courier NewKSX\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  (O$L:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial<\( 9Z+&Courier Regular- -.Courier New Regular _ X_XXX  =_Xdd=    1    Defendantssayintheirbriefthatthereweremultiple  problemswithallthreebuildingsandthatBrandtwithdrewthe  certificatesforallofthem.Nevertheless,theprincipaldispute \ betweenthepartiesrelatestothehauntedhouseandhauntedmine 2 shaftandtothequestionwhetherthesetwoattractionsrequired X sprinklersystems.  $X_XXX  =_Xdd=    2    _Thedistrictcourt'sowncoreorderdoesmentionthenoncore  orderbutonlytosayitpreviouslyresolvedthenoncoreclaims;  a"passingallusion"toapreviousorderintheorderdesignatedby \ thenoticeofappealisnotenoughtoincorporatetheprevious 2 orderintothenotice.SeeKotlerv.Am.TobaccoCo.,981F.2d7, X 12(1stCir.1992).ZX_XXX_ a $X_XXX  =_Xdd=    3    _CompareInreAtlanticBus.andCmty.Corp.,901F.2d325,  32829(3dCir.1990),andBudgetServ.Co.v.BetterHomesofVa.,  Inc.,804F.2d289,292(4thCir.1986),withInreJustBrakes \ Corp.Sys.,108F.3d881,88485(8thCir.1997),InreJoveEng'g, 2 Inc.92F.3d1539,154953(11thCir.1996),Goodmanv.Knight,991 X F.2d613,61820(9thCir.1993),andInreChateaugayCorp.,920 . F.2d183,18487(2dCir.1990).ZX_XXX_  $X_XXX  =_Xdd=    4    _SeeInreAmericanChem.WorksCo.,235B.R.216,22021  (D.R.I.1999);InreA&JAutoSales,Inc.,223B.R.839,84445  (D.N.H.1998);InreShape,Inc.,135B.R.707,708(D.Me.1992); \ InreTuraboMotorsCo.,BAPNo.PR01035,2002Bankr.Lexis1278, 2 *32*34(B.A.P.1stCir.Oct.21,2002).ZX_XXX_ b $X_XXX  =_Xdd=    5    _SeeInreJavens,107F.3d359,36567&n.6(6thCir.1997)  (findingthatNationalHospital'sanalysisdidnotsurviveMCorp).ZX_XXX_#X_XXZX_z#  AfterMCorp,theSixthCircuitconcludedthatbankruptcycourts \ retainthepowertoenjoinbadfaithexercisesofpoliceor 2 regulatorypower(presumablyundersection105(a)),butthiswas X notaclaimthattheautomaticstayoperatedinsuchacase.Id. . at36667&n.7.ZX_XXX_   2 ' Turner0Turner .    !X_XXX  _TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * ! X-XXX_      X X-UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals# X-X # ZX X-  FortheFirstCircuit  I Z X_X I  A') ` dE<` A   No.031315   @ INRE:SPOOKYWORLD,INC., u  @HH'Debtor. ! q @%__________  G  @!SPOOKYWORLD,INC.,   @ Plaintiff,Appellant, O  @tt)v. K    @@TOWNOFBERLIN,ETAL.,  @Defendants,Appellees. S A') ` dE<` A O @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT 4 @0 0 FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS   @[Hon.NathanielM.Gorton,U.S.DistrictJudge] f A') ` dE<` A b @'Before G   @@((Boudin,ChiefJudge,   Baldock, #  *      ׀SeniorCircuitJudge, y! andHoward,CircuitJudge. O " A') ` dE<!` A !K$       StephenGordonwithwhomStephenGordon&Associateswason "0& briefforappellant. #'   PeterJ.CampwithwhomAdamJ.BrandandBrand&Associates $( wereonbriefforappellees. b% )    `    *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  '^"+'^"  SIr'", @37888@SSeptember25,2003 H(#.  RHC)n$/" @37888 @ R(r'"0  (   * ! $*t%0?     [8\_\XXdd8*,X` XX* ` BOUDIN,ChiefJudge. Thisappealconcernseffortsbythe  TownofBerlintobringcertainattractionsownedbyappellant x Spookyworld,Inc.("Spookyworld"),intocompliancewiththe $t MassachusettsBuildingCode.780C.M.R(passim)(6thed.1997).   Spookyworldwascreatedin1991bysoleshareholdersDavidand |  LindaBertolino.Thecorporationbuiltahorrorthemeparkin ( x  Berlin,Massachusetts,onlandleasedfromatrustcontrolledby $  theBertolinos.TheparkcelebratedHalloween,openingeveryyear   onlyforthemonthofOctober. ,|   ` Frommodestbeginnings,Spookyworld'sbusinessgrew ( quickly:in1997,itgrossed$1,880,000,andby1998,itwas  employingapproximately500peopleduringitsannualmonthof 0 operation.In1998theparkcontainedthreebuildingshousinga , totaloffiveattractions:abarn,whichincludedahauntedhouse  anda"celebrityarea"onthemainfloorandahaunted"mineshaft" 4 inthebasement;a"museumdisplay";andametalbuilding 0 containinga3Dwaxmuseum.    ` OnSeptember30,1998,thebuildinginspectorforthe 8!" TownofBerlin,LawrenceBrandt,issuedthreecertificatesof "4$ inspectiontoSpookyworld,oneforeachbuilding.Shortly $& thereafter,onOctober7,BrandtsentalettertoDavidBertolino <&!( rescindingthecertificatecoveringthehauntedhouseandthe '8#* hauntedmineshaft.AccordingtoBrandt,recentamendmentstothe )$, MassachusettsBuildingCoderequiredthatthesetwoattractions @+&. havesprinklersystemsinstalled.780C.M.R.413.4(6thed.  1997).] #  1      ׀ \  ` BecauseofBrandt'sactions,Spookyworldfacedthe X prospectofhavingtoclosetwoofitsprincipaldrawsforthe   durationofthecriticalmonthofOctober.Spookyworldtherefore `  immediatelyappealedBrandt'sdecisiontothebuildingcodeappeals  \  boardunderMass.Gen.Laws,ch.143,100(West2002).Under   thatprovision,Spookyworld'sappealhadtheeffectofstayingall d  enforcementproceedingsagainstit,unlessstateorlocalofficials `  couldpresentevidencethatthestaywould"involveimminentperil   oflifeorproperty."Id.;seealso780C.M.R.122.3.3(6thed. h 1997). d  ` Spookyworldthenbegannegotiationswithtownofficials,  attemptingtoworkoutaninterimsolutionwherebythehaunted l houseandthehauntedmineshaftcouldcontinuetooperatethrough h Octoberwithoutshuttingdownforsprinklerinstallation.Duncan  Baum,thetown'sassistantfirechief,andGeneNovak,aregional p  buildinginspector,participatedinthenegotiations.Amongthe !l"  optionsdiscussedwasa"firewatch,"whichwouldhaveinvolved "$ Spookyworld'spayingthetowntostationfirepersonnelatthepark  duringitshoursofoperation. \   ` Thenegotiationsultimatelybrokedown,andonOctober X 16,1998,thetownfiledacomplaintagainstSpookyworldin   WorcesterSuperiorCourt.Thecomplaintsoughtatemporary `  restrainingorder,shuttingdownthehauntedhouseandthehaunted  \  mineshaftuntilsuchtimeassprinklersystemscouldbeinstalled   ineach;thecomplaintalsosoughtafineforeachdayofnon d  compliance.Thecourtissuedthetemporaryrestrainingorderlater `  thatday.    ` Onehouraftertheorderissued,Spookyworldfileda h chapter11petitionundertheBankruptcyCodeandsoughtto d continueoperatingbothattractionsbyvirtueoftheautomaticstay  providedbythestatute.11U.S.C.362(a)(2000).Theverynext l day,however,Spookyworldwasforcedtoshutdowntheattractions h whentownofficialscametotheparkandthreatenedtoarrest  Spookyworldemployeesfornoncompliancewiththecourtorder. p   ` Inresponse,Spookyworldfiledanadversarycomplaintin !l" bankruptcycourt,seekingapreliminaryinjunctiontohaltthe "$ statecourtproceedingsandpreventanyactiononthepartofthe t$& towntocloseparkfacilities.Atanemergencyhearingheldbefore  &p!( thebankruptcycourtonOctober20,1998,counselforthetown '#* claimedthatcontinuedoperationofthetwofacilitiesinquestion x)$, posedanimmediatedangertothesafetyofthepark'scustomers. $+t&. Thetown'scounselalsorepresentedthatthetown'sactionsenjoyed  thesupportofthehighestpublicsafetyofficialsofthestate. \ ThebankruptcycourtrefusedtograntSpookyworld'srequested X injunction,citingthepolicepowerexceptiontotheautomatic   stay.11U.S.C.362(b)(4)(2000). `   ` ShortlythereaftertheWorcesterSuperiorCourthelda  \  hearingonthecontinuationofthetown'stemporaryrestraining   order.Counselforthetownmaderepresentationsatthishearing d  similartotheoneshehadmadebeforethebankruptcycourt.After `  thehearing,thecourtconvertedthetemporaryrestrainingorder   intoapreliminaryinjunction.Thehauntedhouseandthehaunted h mineshaftremainedclosedfortherestofOctober1998. d  ` OnFebruary9,1999,Spookyworldfiledanamended  adversarycomplaintinbankruptcycourt.Theamendedcomplaint l allegedthattheTownofBerlinandvariousofitsofficialshad h willfullyviolatedtheautomaticstay.Theamendedcomplaintalso  containedasection1983claim,42U.S.C.1983(2000),asection p  1985claim,id.1985,andseveralstatelawclaimsincluding !l" libel,slander,interferencewithcontractualrelationships,and "$ violationsofMass.Gen.Laws,ch.12,11HI(West2002).Indue t$& course,defendantsmovedforsummaryjudgmentonallclaims.  &p!(  ` OnAugust2,2001,thebankruptcycourtruledthat '#* Spookyworld'sautomaticstayclaimwasacorebankruptcyclaimand x)$, thatallofSpookyworld'sotherclaimswerenoncoreclaims.Inre $+t&. Spookyworld,266B.R.1,611(Bankr.D.Mass.2001).The  bankruptcycourtgranteddefendants'motionforsummaryjudgment \ withrespecttotheautomaticstayclaim,28U.S.C.157(b)(1) X (2000);and,astotherestofSpookyworld'sclaims,framed   proposedfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflawrecommendingthe `  grantofsummaryjudgmentinfavorofdefendants.28U.S.C.  \  157(c)(1)(2000);Spookyworld,266B.R.at1120.    ` Spookyworldfiledatimelyappealtothedistrictcourt d  challengingthebankruptcycourt'sgrantofsummaryjudgmentonthe `  coreautomaticstayclaim.Possiblythenoticecouldbereadalso   toembraceachallengetothebankruptcycourt'sproposedfindings h offactandconclusionsoflawwithregardtothenoncoreclaims. d Ifthelatterwasintended,useofanappealwasaprocedural  misstep;theproposedfindingsandconclusionswerenotajudgment l subjectto"appeal"butrecommendationstothedistrictcourt.The h correct,andrequired,coursewastofile"specificobjections"to  thoserecommendationsthatweredisputedbySpookyworld.28U.S.C. p  157(c)(1)(2000);Fed.R.Bank.P.9033. !l"  ` OnDecember19,2001,nospecificobjectionstothe "$ recommendationshavingbeenfiledwithinthetimeprovided,the t$& districtcourtadoptedthebankruptcycourt'sproposedfindingsof  &p!( factandconclusionsoflaw;accordingly,thedistrictcourt,by '#* orderdatedthesameday,grantedjudgmenttothedefendantsonthe x)$, noncoreclaims.WhetherSpookyworldwasimmediatelyawareofthe $+t&. December19actionsisunclear,butatnopointdiditseekto  reopenthisjudgmentbasedonlackofnotice. \  ` Theappealastothecoreclaimswasmoreprotracted. X Overayearlaterandafterbriefingbybothsidesthedistrict   courtonJanuary23,2003,issuedamemorandumandorderaffirming `  (ongroundsdescribedbelow)thebankruptcycourt'sgrantof  \  summaryjudgmenttodefendantsonSpookyworld'scoreautomaticstay   claim.ThedistrictcourtthendismissedSpookyworld'sappealon d  January24,2003.Spookyworld'sdistrictcourtbriefalsoattacked `  therecommendationsonthenoncoreclaimsbutthedistrictcourt   notedthatthosehadalreadybeendisposedofbytheDecember19, h 2001,judgment.Spookyworldfiledanoticeofappealtothiscourt d onFebruary21,2003.   ` Inthiscourt,Spookyworldcontestsboththedistrict l courtorderofDecember19,2001,enteringjudgmentforthe h defendantsonthenoncoreclaims(the"noncoreorder")andthe  memorandumandorderofJanuary23,2003,affirmingthebankruptcy p  court'sdispositionofthecoreautomaticstayclaim(the"core !l" order").Atthethreshold,defendantssaythatSpookyworld's "$ noticeofappealdoesnotencompassthenoncoreorder,andthat t$& thereforewelackpowertoconsideritonthemerits.Fed.R.App.  &p!( P.3(c);Smithv.Barry,502U.S.244,248(1992)("Rule3's '#*  dictatesarejurisdictionalinnature...."). x)$,  ` Fed.R.App.P.3(c)(1)(B)states:"Thenoticeofappeal   mustdesignatethejudgment,order,orpartthereofbeing \ appealed."TherequirementsofRule3areliberallyconstrued, X Barry,502U.S.at248,and"[a]mistakeindesignatingajudgment   ...inthenoticeofappealordinarilywillnotresultinlossof `  theappealaslongastheintenttoappealaspecificjudgmentcan  \  befairlyinferredfromthenoticeandappelleeisnotmisledby   themistake."Kellyv.UnitedStates,789F.2d94,96n.3(1st d  Cir.1986).ButRule3muststillbesatisfied,and"noncompliance `  isfataltoanappeal."Barry,502U.S.at248;Torresv.Oakland   ScavengerCo.,487U.S.312,317n.3(1988). h  ` Spookyworld'snoticeofappealtothiscourtsaysinits d entirety:   ` [Nowcomes]theAppellantSpookyworld,Inc. l andappealstheOrderofDismissalofthe B DistrictCourtdated1/23/03affirmingthe h decisionoftheBankruptcyCourtwhich > allowedtheMotionofDefendants,Townof  Berlin,etalforSummaryJudgment.  ` > >>Thislanguagerefersonlytotheorderresolvingthecoreclaim,^ #  2       F ! andthisisnotsufficienttoinformeitherdefendantsorthecourt !B# ofSpookyworld'sintenttoappealthenoncoreorder.Barry,502 #% U.S.at248.Accordingly,wedonotreachthequestionswhether J% ' defendantswereprejudicedorwhetheranappealfromthenoncore  orderissuedoverayearbeforethenoticeofappealwasfiled \ wouldhavebeentimely.Fed.R.App.P.6(a);Fed.R.App.P. X 4(a)(1)(A).    ` Occasionally,anopeningbriefhasbeentreatedasa `  noticeofappeal,andSpookyworld'sbriefinthiscourtdoes  \  contestthedispositionofthenoncoreorder.ButSpookyworld's   openingbriefwasnotfileduntilMay20,2003,whichiswellafter d  the30daysforfilinganoticeofappeal,Fed.R.App.P. `  4(a)(1)(A),fromthecoreorder(issuedonJanuary23,2003),and   overayearafterthenoncoreorder(issuedonDecember19,2001). h Barry,502U.S.at249(appellatecourtmaytreatafiling"styled d asabriefasanoticeofappeal,"butonly"ifthefilingis  timelyunderRule4andconveystheinformationrequiredbyRule l 3(c)"). h  ` Thisbringsustothebankruptcycourt'sgrantofsummary  judgmenttodefendantsonSpookyworld'scoreautomaticstayclaim p  whichwereviewdenovo,InreVarrasso,37F.3d760,76263(1st !l" Cir.1994),construingtherecordinthelightmostfavorableto "$ Spookyworldasthenonmovingparty.TriangleTradingCo.v. t$& RobroyIndus.,200F.3d1,2(1stCir.1999);Varrasso,37F.3dat  &p!( 763.Wemustaffirmif"nogenuineissueofmaterialfactexists, '#*  and[defendantshave]successfullydemonstratedanentitlementto x)$, judgmentasamatteroflaw."Fed.R.Civ.P.56(c);Fed.R.  Bankr.P.7056;Varrasso,37F.3dat763. \   ` Spookyworldarguesthatdefendants'actions,including X thecontinuedprosecutionofthestatecourtcaseafterSpookyworld   fileditschapter11proceeding,constituteawillfulviolationof `  theautomaticstay,entitlingittodamagesundersection362(h).  \  Thebankruptcycourtruledthattheseactionsrestedonthetown's   policeorregulatorypowerandsowereexemptfromtheautomatic d  stayundersection362(b)(4).Spookyworld,266B.R.at1720.The `  districtcourtaffirmedbutonadifferentground:itheldthat   corporationscannottakeadvantageofsection362(h)'srightof h actionbecausetheprovisiononlyauthorizessuitsbroughtby d "individual[s]."   ` Inourviewbothcourtswereright.Weconcludethat l Spookyworld,becauseitisacorporation,cannotbringsuitunder h section362(h),andthatevenifitcould,defendants'actionsare  withinthepolicepowerexceptiontotheautomaticstay.Wealso p  rejectSpookyworld'salternativeargumentthatthebankruptcycourt !l" shouldhavesanctioneddefendantsaccordingtoitscontemptpowers "$ under11U.S.C.105(a)(2000).Thesethreeissuesareconsidered t$& inturn.  &p!(  ` Section362(a)oftheBankruptcyCode,imposingthe '#* automaticstay,appliesgenerallytoproceedingsagainst"the x)$, debtor."ӀPBycontrast,section362(h)says:"Anindividualinjured $+t&. byanywillfulviolationofastayprovidedbythissectionshall  recoveractualdamages,includingcostsandattorneys'fees,and, \ inappropriatecircumstances,mayrecoverpunitivedamages." X Defendantsarguethattheterm"individual"meansthatcorporations   arenotauthorizedtocollectdamagesundersection362. `   ` Thereiscurrentlyacircuitsplit.Twocircuitshold  \  thattheterm"individual"includescorporations,andfourcircuits   holdthatitdoesnot._ #  3      Everydistrictcourtinthiscircuitto d  considertheissuehasendorsedthemajorityview,ashasthe `  circuit'sBankruptcyAppellatePanel.`j #  4      ׀Analysisstarts,asusual,   withthestatutorylanguage,UnitedStatesv.RonPairEnters.,489 h U.S.235,24142(1989),althoughbarewordswouldnotlicensea d result"demonstrablyatodds"withlegislativeintent.Id.at242  (quotingGriffinv.OceanicContractors,Inc.,458U.S.564,571 l (1982)). h  ` TheBankruptcyCodedoesnotdefine"individual,"but  severalprovisionsindicatethatthetermwasnotmeanttoinclude p  corporations.Forexample,thecodedefines"person"toinclude  "individual[s],partnership[s],andcorporation[s]."11U.S.C. \ 101(41)(2000)(emphasisadded).Inaddition,"corporation"is X definedtoincludean"associationhavingapowerorprivilegethat   aprivatecorporation,butnotanindividualorapartnership `  possesses."Id.101(9)(A)(i)(emphasisadded).SeealsoInre  \  JoveEng'g,Inc.92F.3d1539,1551&n.11(11thCir.1996)(citing   additionalexamples);InreChateaugayCorp.,920F.2d183,18586 d  (2dCir.1990)(same). `   ` ItmayatfirstbesurprisingthatCongresswouldwantto   withholdthebenefitsof362(h)fromcorporations,butthis h decisionisnot"demonstrablyatodds"withlegislativeintent. d Section362(h)wasenactedaspartofthe"'ConsumerCredit  Amendments,'whichcontain[ed]numerousadditionstothecode l relatingonlyto'individuals.'"Chateaugay,920F.2dat186 h (citingBankruptcyAmendmentsandFederalJudgshipActof1984,  Pub.L.No.98353,TitleIIIAmendmentstoTitle11oftheUnited p  StatesCode,SubtitleAConsumerCreditAmendments,304,98 !l" Stat.333,352(1984)). "$  ` Corporationsarenotwhollywithoutremedyforviolations t$& oftheautomaticstay:under11U.S.C.105(a)(2000),"[t]he  &p!( courtmayissueanyorder,process,orjudgmentthatisnecessary '#* orappropriatetocarryouttheprovisionsofthistitle."Prior x)$, totheenactmentofsection362(h)in1984,contemptordersissued $+t&. undersection105(a),includingawardsofdamages,wereroutinely  usedtopunishviolationsoftheautomaticstay.SeeInre \ Crysen/MontenayEnergyCo.,902F.2d1098,1104(2dCir.1990);In X reA&JAutoSales,Inc.,223B.R.839,84445(D.N.H.1998).    ` Afterenactmentofsection362(h),corporations(and `  othernon"individual[s]")remainfreetopetitionbankruptcy  \  courtstoawarddamagesforautomaticstayviolationspursuantto   theirsection105(a)power.See,e.g.,Chateaugay,920F.2dat d  18687.Adiscretionaryremedyisnotasgoodasonethatis `  assured,seeGoodmanv.Knight,991F.2d613,62021(9thCir.   1993),butCongresscouldeasilyhavethoughtthatcorporations h neededlessprotection.AstheSecondCircuitexplains: d r^` ` AfterCongressin1978passedtheautomatic  stayprovisionsof362alongwiththerest  ofthecode,including105(a)...,itis l entirelypossiblethatCongressthenchoseto B expandtheremediesforviolationsonestepat h atime.Congressmaywellhavethoughtthat > individualdebtorswereparticularly  vulnerabletoviolationsofthestaybydebt  collectionagenciesandotherswhomaybe p  temptedtobelievethatindividualsareless F ! likelythancorporationstobeawareoftheir !l" rightsundertheautomaticstay. !B# ` ` Chateaugay,920F.2dat186. #%  ` Insum,weagreewiththeSecond,Eighth,Ninth,and J% ' EleventhCircuits,andwiththedistrictcourtsandtheBAPinthis &F") circuit,andholdthatcorporationscannotsueundersection362(h) (#+ toobtaindamagesforviolationoftheautomaticstay.Statutory N*%- languagesosuggestsandneitherlegislativehistorynorpolicy +J'/ concernspointtheotherway.Itiswelltohavethisissue  settledinthiscircuitatleastuntiltheSupremeCourtaddresses \ thematterwhichmighttakesometimeifothercircuitsfollowthe X pluralityview.    ` Spookyworldarguesthat,soconstrued,section362(h) `  deniesequalprotectionundertheFifthAmendmenttocloselyheld  \  corporations,likeitself,thathaveonlyafewshareholders.But   whendrawingdistinctionsthatdonotinvolvefundamentalrightsor d  suspectclasses,Congressneedonlyhavearationalbasisforits `  decisions,UnitedStatesR.R.Ret.Bd.v.Fritz,449U.S.166,175   76(1980).Thereisnothingirrationalindrawingeconomic h regulationlinesbetweenindividualsandcorporations,closelyheld d orotherwise;indeed,theInternalRevenueCodeisrifewithsuch  distinctions. l  ` Evenifcorporationscouldsue,wewouldstillaffirmthe h bankruptcycourt'sgrantofsummaryjudgmentonthemerits.  Ordinarily,bankruptcyautomaticallystayslawsuitsinothercourts p  againstthedebtor,see,e.g.,ICCv.HolmesTransp.,Inc.,931 !l" F.2d984,98788(1stCir.1991),butthisissubjecttotheso "$ calledpolicepowerexception.Section362(b)(4)says: t$& 8 ` Thefilingofa[chapter11]petition...  &p!( doesnotoperateasastay...ofthe &F") commencementorcontinuationofanactionor '#* proceedingbyagovernmentalunit...to (#+ enforcesuchgovernmentalunit's...police x)$, orregulatorypower.N*%-` x` x    $+t&. po11U.S.C.362(b)(4)(2000).Thetownisa"governmentalunit"   withinthemeaningof362(b)(4).Cournoyerv.TownofLincoln,790 \ F.2d971,975(1stCir.1986). X  ` Spookyworldsaysthatthissectiondoesnotapplybecause   thedefendants'actionswereundertakeninbadfaith.Accordingto `  Spookyworld,thedefendantsinsecuringthetemporaryrestraining  \  orderfromtheWorcesterSuperiorCourtdeliberatelyexaggerated   thedangersofoperatingthehauntedhouseandthehauntedmine d  shaftwithoutsprinklers,theseverityofanyallegedbuildingcode `  violations,andthedegreetowhichstatepublicsafetyofficials   supportedtheirdecisiontotakelegalaction. h  ` Spookyworldalsosaysthatwhenitsoughtprotection d underchapter11,thetownsimilarlymisledthebankruptcycourt  inconvincingitnottoenjointhestatecourtaction.Itclaims l thatthedefendantsagainmisrepresentedthesituationwhenthey h convincedtheWorcesterSuperiorCourt,postpetition,toconvert  itstemporaryrestrainingorderintoapreliminaryinjunction.It p  saysthattherecorddemonstratesthesefalsestatementsor,atthe !l" veryleast,thattheirfalsityinvolvesfactualissuesbarringthe "$ districtcourt'sgrantofsummaryjudgment. t$&  ` Forclarity'ssake,Spookyworld'sargumentshouldbe  &p!( distinguishedfromarelated,buthereinapplicable,limitationon '#* theuseofthepolicepowerexceptiontotheautomaticstay.Under x)$, thecaselaw,theexceptiondoesnotapplyifthegovernmenttakes $+t&. legalactiontoadvanceitsown"pecuniary"interest(orperhaps  thepecuniaryinterestofothers);butitdoesapplyifthe \ governmentactsintheinterestof"publicsafetyandwelfare." X E.g.,InreUniversalLifeChurch,128F.3d1294,129798(9thCir.   1997);seealsoChaov.Hosp.StaffingServs.,Inc.,270F.3d374, `  38589(6thCir.2001).  \   ` TheMassachusettsBuildingCodeisplainlyaimedat   protectingthepublic,andSpookyworlddoesnotsayotherwise.In d  adoptingthepolicepowerexceptiontotheautomaticstay,Congress `  explainedthat"whereagovernmentalunitissuingadebtorto   preventorstopviolationoffraud,environmentalprotection, h consumerprotection,safety,orsimilarpoliceorregulatorylaws d ...theactionorproceedingisnotstayedundertheautomatic  stay."S.Rep.No.95989,at52(1978).Accord,Cournoyer,790 l F.2dat97577(enforcementofzoningregulationwithinpolice h powerexception).   ` Admittedly,thereissomeauthorityfortheproposition p  thatgovernmentactionsundertakeninbadfaitharenotexemptfrom !l" theautomaticstay.SeeInreNat'lHosp.andInstitutional "$ BuildersCo.,658F.2d39,4344(2dCir.1981)(undertheold t$& BankruptcyActwhichhadnobuiltinpolicepowerexception);Inre  &p!( BekerIndus.Corp.,57B.R.611,627(Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1986). '#* However,NationalHospitalwasarguablyundermined,ifnot x)$, overruled,byBoardofGovernorsv.MCorpFinancial,Inc.,502U.S. $+t&. 32,40(1991),whichheldthatbankruptcycourtsshouldnotinquire  intothe"legitimacy"ofongoingadministrativeenforcement \ proceedingsindeterminingwhetherthepolicepowerexception X appliestothem.a #  5      ׀    ` Wearedoubtfulwhetherabadfaithexceptionshouldbe `  readintosection362(b)(4)wherethestatedirectivebeing  \  enforcedisdirectedatordinarypublicpurposes.Thereismuch   forcetothedissentofJudgeMansfieldinNationalHospital: d  ` ` [Abadfaith]exceptionwouldresultin `  BankruptcyCourtminitrialsofpurelystate 6 regulatoryissueswhenever,asmightbe   expectedtohappenfrequently,thedebtor  soughtbyclaiming'badfaith'tohavethose h issuestriedinaBankruptcyCourt,which > wouldbesympathetictowardanyresolution d thatwouldimprovetheestate,ratherthan : beforestatetribunals.Theproperremedyis  toseekredressinthestatecourtswhichmay  beexpectednottotoleratebadfaithconduct l .... B ` ` NationalHospital,658F.2dat46.Bycontrast,thepecuniary > purposeexceptionneedpresentnosuchdangers.Cf.SafetyKleen,  Inc.v.Wyche,274F.3d846,865(4thCir.2001)(pecuniarypurpose F ! testlooksonlytotheobjectivepurposeoftheunderlyinglaw !B# soughttobeenforced). #%  ` Ofcourse,onecanimaginesomefairlyappealingcases  forabadfaithexception;supposethatincontrovertibleproofwas \ availablethatthetown'slawyerhadbroughtawhollybaseless X injunctionactionagainstSpookyworldmotivatedbypersonalmalice.   Yetsuchaninjunctioncouldeasilybeoverturnedbyofferingthe `  sameevidencetothestatecourt;andstateremediesexistfor  \  maliciousprosecution.Thus,thecaseforabadfaithexception   seemsthin;but,evenifsuchanexceptionexistedwhichweneed d  notdefinitivelydecideitwouldnotextendtothiscase. `   ` Onsummaryjudgmentweareboundtoassumethat   Spookyworldcouldprovethatdefendantsexaggeratedtheseriousness h ofthebuildingcodeviolations,butthisisafarcryfromshowing d thatthedefendantsbroughtthestateactionforulteriormotives  orthattheydidnotbelieveinthebasicgenuinenessoftheir l case.Lawyersconstantlyoverstatetheirclaims.Inarobust h adversarysystem,courtsofferlawyersameasureoflatitude.   ` Ifmisstatementsandexaggerationinthestatecourtwere p  enoughtodefeattheautomaticstay,thebankruptcycourtswouldbe !l" relitigatingstateenforcementactionseveryday.Thegameisnot "$ worththecandle.Itiswelltorememberthatsection362(b)(4) t$& embodiesafundamentaljudgmentofCongress:thatprotectingthe  &p!( publicwelfareandsafetytrumpstheconcernsthatunderliethe '#* automaticstay,aprovisionwhosemainpurposeistopreventsome x)$, privatecreditorsfromgainingpriorityonothercreditors.See, $+t&. e.g.,Mannv.ChaseManhattanMortgageCorp.,316F.3d1,3(1st  Cir.2003). \  ` Therearepenaltiesenough,formalaswellasinformal, X forlawyersandotherofficialswhomakefalsefactualstatements   tocourts.Indeed,Spookyworlditselfarguesinthealternative `  thatthebankruptcycourtshouldhaveawardeditdamagesunder  \  section105(a).Asnotedearlier,bankruptcycourtsdopossessthe   discretionaryauthoritytoawarddamagesforautomaticstay d  violationsaspartoftheirpowerto"issueanyorder...thatis `  necessaryorappropriatetocarryouttheprovisionsofthis   title."11U.S.C.105(a)(2000);Chateaugay,920F.2dat18687. h  ` Thisalternativeclaimfordamagesiswaivedbecause  Spookyworlddidnotmakeitbeforethedistrictcourt.SeeDaigle l v.Me.Med.Ctr.,Inc.,14F.3d684,687(1stCir.1994).Inany h event,thedecisionwhethertoawardsuchdamagesisdiscretionary.  Goodman,991F.2dat620.Onthisrecord,thereisnothingthat p  wouldmakeitanabuseofdiscretiontorefusetoawarddamages !l" underthecontemptpower. "$  ` Affirmed.