28 U.S.C. § 157

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear a post-confirmation adversary proceeding when resolving it requires interpreting the court’s confirmation order.

General Electric Capital Corp. v. Union Planters Bank, N.A. (In re Machinery, Inc.) · filed 2006-04-25(b)(1)

The Court notes that although the disputed Lift Proceeds were generated post-confirmation, the Court must interpret its order confirming Machinery's plan of reorganization to determine which party had a superior interest in the Lift Proceeds. The Court, therefore, has subject matter over this adversary complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

Section 157(c) permits related-to jurisdiction over a postconfirmation dispute with a close nexus to the reorganization plan, including one that may materially affect the debtor’s liabilities.

In Re Shenango Group Inc. · filed 2007-09-06(c)

Accordingly, we conclude that the Bankruptcy Court appropriately exercised “related to” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c), and that the District Court had appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a).

Section 157(c) permits related-to jurisdiction over a post-confirmation plan dispute with a close nexus to the bankruptcy proceeding that materially affects the debtor’s liabilities.

In Re: Shenango Grp · filed 2007-09-06(c)

Accordingly, we conclude that the Bankruptcy Court appropriately exercised “related to” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c), and that the District Court had appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) does not classify a proceeding as core when the bankruptcy estate no longer exists.

Globaleyes Telecommunications, Inc. v. Verizon North, Inc. · filed 2010-03-01(b)(2)(E)

Because the “estate” no longer existed, Counts I and III could not possibly be “core” proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) (E).

Section 157(b) gives a bankruptcy court core jurisdiction to interpret a reorganization plan and confirmation order.

Evercore Capital Partners II, L.L.C. v. Nancy Sue Davis Trust (In Re Davis Offshore) · filed 2011-06-16(b)

We are persuaded that it had core jurisdiction to interpret the Plan and confirmation order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157(b) gives bankruptcy courts core jurisdiction to interpret a reorganization plan and confirmation order after confirmation.

Evercore Capital Partners II, L.L.C. v. Nancy Sue Davis Trust · filed 2011-06-16(b)

We are persuaded that it had core jurisdiction to interpret the Plan and confirmation order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157(b)(2)(L) gives bankruptcy courts core jurisdiction to consider restrictions that are integral to a plan confirmation order.

In Re Safety Harbor Resort and Spa · filed 2011-08-30(b)(2)(L)

In this case, the “lock-up” provisions are an integral part of the order confirming the plan under which the non-debtor guarantors will receive the benefit of an injunction protecting them from being sued on their guaranties during the term of the plan. Unquestionably, the Court’s consideration of such terms falls within this Court’s core jurisdiction under section 157(b)(2)(L).

Section 157(b)(2)(L) places confirmation of a reorganization plan within the bankruptcy court’s core jurisdiction.

In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. · filed 2011-09-13(b)(2)(L)

Confirmation of a plan of reorganization is within the bankruptcy court’s core jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(L).

Section 157(b) gives a bankruptcy court core jurisdiction over a postconfirmation motion to interpret and enforce its confirmed plan.

Mallinckrodt plc · filed 2023-04-19(b)

Here, the question is whether the Plan allows for a State SAA to alter the Approved Uses to which Abatement Distributions from NOAT II can be put. ... It is plainly obvious, therefore, that this Court has core jurisdiction over the Motion.

Section 157 does not limit a bankruptcy court’s authority to enter orders and judgments after plan confirmation.

Inland Boat Club, LLC v. Lee · filed 2024-03-28

The plain language of Section 1334 does not limit jurisdiction post-confirmation and, likewise, there is nothing in Section 157 that limits a bankruptcy court’s authority to enter orders and judgments post-confirmation.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (B) places the method for presenting requests for debtor’s attorney compensation within bankruptcy courts’ core jurisdiction.

In Re LaFrance · filed 2004-06-10(b)(2)(A) and (B)

And the method by which requests for compensation will be presented to the Court is well within the core jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts. 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A) and (B).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats awards of fees to bankruptcy professionals as core proceedings involving administration of the debtor’s estate.

In Re Fricker · filed 1991-09-20(b)(2)(A)

We view this matter, as any matter involving an award of fee to professionals, as intrinsically involved with administration of a debtor’s estate, and therefore a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), which this bankruptcy court must determine.

Section 157(b)(2) treats applications for interim compensation by counsel for debtors in possession as core proceedings.

In Re Roberts · filed 1985-02-04(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(O)

This is a “core” proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (0).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a dispute over whether a debtor’s attorney is disinterested and eligible for employment as a core proceeding concerning estate administration.

In Re GHR Energy Corp. · filed 1985-07-20(b)(2)(A)

The second issue is clearly a core matter. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) core proceedings include “matters concerning the administration of the estate.” The right of the debtor to employ an attorney was granted by Congress in 11 U.S.C. § 327(a) subject to certain conditions. Congress has left no doubt as to what matters concern case administration for it subtitled Chapter 3 of title 11 “Case Administration.” Since the right to employ and compensate an attorney is within this section, the issue of whether a firm is “disinterested” under § 327(a) and defined in § 101(13) is a core proceeding.

Section 157 treats an application for debtor’s counsel’s fees as a core proceeding.

In Re Thacker · filed 1985-04-03

This cause constitutes a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) covers a Rule 9011 sanctions action concerning counsel’s Chapter 11 disclosure statement as a core proceeding.

In Re Ligon · filed 1985-06-03(b)(2)(A)

This is an action by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to impose sanctions on the debtor’s counsel pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9011. ... This is a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a motion to disqualify counsel for a major secured creditor as a core proceeding concerning administration of the estate.

In Re Johore Investment Co. (U.S.A.) · filed 1985-09-20(b)(2)(A)

First, a motion to disqualify counsel of a major secured creditor is a matter integrally tied to the administration of the estate, and disposing of such a motion is clearly a necessary function of the bankruptcy judge in presiding over the orderly administration of the estate. Accordingly, the court finds that Johore’s motion to disqualify counsel was a “core proceeding” under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2) treats a sanctions proceeding for vexatious conduct during core bankruptcy proceedings as a core proceeding.

Matter of Emergency Beacon Corp. · filed 1985-08-21(b)(2)

The court concludes that the bankruptcy proceeding appealed from herein is a core proceeding. The litigation involving the reinstituted Chapter XI proceeding, the certificate of indebtedness, and Glatzer’s two automobiles all fall within the subsections of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) cited above. It follows then that Judge Schwartzberg’s sanction order for vexatious action taken during these core proceedings is itself a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats awards of compensation for services rendered to the estate as core proceedings, whose factual findings receive clearly erroneous review.

In Re Harman · filed 1985-09-17(b)(2)(A)

Awards of compensation for services rendered to the estate pursuant to section 330, including the attorney's fees involved in the instant case, are incidents of the administration of the estate and are closely tied to the exercise of the federal bankruptcy power. As such they are core proceedings and a bankruptcy court's fact-findings relating to them are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to treat sanctions for counsel’s trial-related conduct as a core proceeding.

Interstate Steel Setters, Inc. v. A.J. Maggio Co. (In Re Interstate Steel Setters, Inc.) · filed 1986-10-09(b)(2)(O)

This Court has core jurisdiction to consider and impose sanctions under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for trial related conduct of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0), 11 U.S.C. § 105, In re TCI Ltd., 769 F.2d 441, 448 (7th Cir.1985), and General Order of Reference (July 10, 1984) of the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157 treats an action for attorney fees under 11 U.S.C. § 506(b) as a core proceeding within the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction.

Farmers Home Administration v. Farmers State Bank of Hosmer (In Re Dohn) · filed 1986-12-19(b)

What is important is that an action brought under § 506(b) for attorney fees is a core proceeding over which the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats an application for an estate attorney’s compensation as a core proceeding.

In re Curtis · filed 1987-01-13(b)(2)(A)

This proceeding is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Under § 157(b)(2)(A), an application to appoint counsel nunc pro tunc is a core proceeding when it principally concerns professional employment and compensation.

In Re McDaniels · filed 1988-04-26(b)(2)(A)

This Court is of the opinion that a nunc pro tunc application for appointment of counsel is a core proceeding as the issues in that application principally involve the employment and compensation of a professional person under 11 U.S.C. §§ 327, 328 and 330.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) classify a bankruptcy fee application as a core proceeding.

In Re Stoecker · filed 1990-05-24(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(O)

This matter constitutes a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), and (O).

Section 157 treats a request for fees arising from a core claim-disallowance proceeding as a core proceeding.

In Re Chambers · filed 1992-03-13(b)(2)(B)

The court also finds that Ms. Chambers’ request for attorneys’ fees constitutes a core proceeding. Core proceedings include the allowance and disallowance of a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B). In the instant case, the underlying litigation, which was the debtor’s objection to the Government’s claim, involves the disallowance of a claim, and is a core proceeding. Therefore, the court agrees with the bankruptcy court’s finding that the request for fees arising out of a core bankruptcy proceeding is also a core proceeding.

Section 157(b) treats determinations of a debtor’s attorney’s fees as core proceedings concerning administration of the estate.

Saker v. Luper (In re Holiday Towers) · filed 1992-05-15(b)(2)(A)

Determinations of attorney's fees are core proceedings because such determinations are obviously matters concerning the administration of the estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats proceedings concerning the employment and compensation of bankruptcy professionals as core proceedings involving estate administration.

In Re Reams Broadcasting Corp. · filed 1993-03-02(b)(2)(A)

Proceedings relating to the employment and compensation of professional persons are core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), since they involve administration of the estate.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to enter a final order on sanctions arising from a core proceeding, such as a motion to dismiss a Chapter 11 case.

In the Matter of Benjamin M. Victoria, Jr., Debtor/appellee. Appeal of S.A. Schapiro · filed 1995-04-06(b)(1), (b)(2)

The court agrees with Judge McGarity's analysis of the nature of the sanctions hearing. In re Memorial Estates, Inc., 950 F.2d 1364, 1370 (7th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 2969 (1992), clearly supports the determination that the sanctions issue, which arose in the context of the hearing on the motion to dismiss the Chapter 11 action--clearly "a case under the code"--was a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy court could enter a final order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 157(b)(1) and (2).

Section 157(b)(2) treats a motion for sanctions arising directly from a bankruptcy case as a core proceeding.

In Re Thompson · filed 2004-09-20(b)(2)

Motions, such as this, seeking sanctions against a party for conduct arising directly from a bankruptcy case are deemed core proceedings for purposes of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157 treats Rule 9011 sanctions motions as core proceedings within a bankruptcy court’s referred jurisdiction.

In Re American Telecom Corp. · filed 2004-09-21(b)(2)(A)

Motions for Rule 9011 sanctions are “core” proceedings over which bankruptcy courts have referred jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a)-(b)(2)(A) and § 1334(b).

Section 157(b)(1) permits bankruptcy courts to issue final orders imposing sanctions on litigants in a bankruptcy case because those sanctions arise in the case.

Wayland v. McVay (In re Tbyrd Enterprises LLC) · filed 2009-10-07(b)(1)

But the imposition of sanctions on litigants in a bankruptcy case is clearly a matter “arising in” such a case, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), so bankruptcy courts have jurisdiction to issue such orders.

Section 157(b)(1) permits bankruptcy courts to issue final orders imposing sanctions on litigants in a bankruptcy case because those sanctions arise in the case.

BFG Investments LLC v. Texas State Bank · filed 2009-10-07(b)(1)

But the imposition of sanctions on litigants in a bankruptcy case is clearly a matter “arising in” such a case, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), so bankruptcy courts have jurisdiction to issue such orders.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to exercise core jurisdiction over fees for a Chapter 7 trustee and professionals performing the trustee’s retirement plan administration duties.

In Re Franchi Equipment Co., Inc. · filed 2011-06-29(b)(1)

But I go further and adopt the approach taken in Robert Plan and NSCO and find that the bankruptcy court has core jurisdiction over the award of fees to a Chapter 7 trustee and his professionals for performing, or assisting the trustee in performing, his duties under § 704(a)(ll) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a postpetition dispute over payment of a debtor’s attorney’s fees as a core proceeding when the fees affect administration of the bankruptcy estate.

Strayer v. Thompson (In re Farquhar) · filed 1988-08-02(b)(2)

And attorney’s fees are ordinarily considered to be within the “core” jurisdiction of a bankruptcy court, for in regulating them, the bankruptcy court necessarily adds to or detracts from the magnitude of the bankruptcy estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats professional fee applications as core proceedings concerning estate administration.

Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of Santa and Associated Case in US District Court · filed 2023-03-31(b)(2)(A)

Fee applications are within the “core” jurisdiction of the bankruptcy courts.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer a proceeding to the bankruptcy court when the proceeding could conceivably affect the bankruptcy estate.

Cutcliff v. Reuter · filed 2015-06-30(a)

As a result, referring this proceeding to the bankruptcy court was permitted by 28 U.S.C. § 157(a).

Section 157 gives district courts discretion to refer bankruptcy matters to bankruptcy judges and to withdraw referred matters; it does not authorize a litigant to remove a case directly from district court to bankruptcy court.

Doyle v. Mellon Bank, N.A. · filed 2004-03-24(a), (d)

Nor are plaintiffs aided by 28 U.S.C. § 157, which governs bankruptcy court procedures. Section 157 makes it clear that bankruptcy court authority derives from the district courts which are empowered, in the exercise of their discretion, to refer bankruptcy cases to, and withdraw them from, the bankruptcy courts.

Section 157(d) leaves the district court to decide whether to retain a bankruptcy proceeding or refer it to the bankruptcy court.

Bessette v. AVCO Financial Services Inc. · filed 2000-10-27(d)

In any event, we venture no opinion as to the suitability of class certification in these circumstances, and the decision of whether the district court sitting in bankruptcy should retain jurisdiction or refer the parties to the bankruptcy court rests most appropriately with the district court on remand. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

Section 157(a) permits a district court to defer referral of bankruptcy claims while it decides a motion to dismiss.

Walls v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2000-10-16(a)

This court, however, may refer to the bankruptcy court any cases arising under that title as well as related proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(a); E.D. Gen. Ord. No. 182. ... Accordingly, this court will exercise its discretion and will not refer the core claims to the bankruptcy court prior to ruling on defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Section 157(a) allows a territorial district court to refer bankruptcy cases to bankruptcy judges serving its district.

Vickers Associates, Ltd. v. Urice · filed 1998-07-20(a)

Section 157 of the Act, which spells out the jurisdiction of bankruptcy judges and their relationships to the judges of the district courts, is not limited by its text to the Article III courts listed in subsection 152(a)(2). Rather, that text is drafted in such a way that once bankruptcy judges are available to assist the judges of a district court of a territory, the system will work in the same fashion in that district as in other districts with initially authorized bankruptcy judge seats.

Section 157(a) permits the District Court of the Virgin Islands to refer bankruptcy cases to a bankruptcy judge serving in the district.

Vickers Associates, Ltd. v. Urice (In Re Jaritz Industries, Ltd.) · filed 1998-07-20(a)

Section 157(a), for example, stipulates that "[e]ach district court may provide that any or all cases [, arising under, arising in, or related to a case under] title 11 shall be referred to the bankruptcy judges for the district." It was this provision under which the district court of the Virgin Islands entered its general order of reference. We believe that order was fully consistent with the wording and intent of section 157.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer bankruptcy cases and proceedings to bankruptcy courts while retaining jurisdiction over bankruptcy matters.

Adams ex rel. Butcher v. Sidney Schafer & Associates, Inc. · filed 1987-02-17(a)

Thus, the district court maintains all of the jurisdiction applicable to bankruptcy matters subject only to its reference of cases and proceedings to the bankruptcy courts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a).

Section 157 permits district judges to refer bankruptcy matters to a bankruptcy judge through a standing reference order.

Gibbons Construction Co. v. Tenneco, Inc. (In Re Gibbons Construction, Inc.) · filed 1984-08-30(a)

The District Judges of the Eastern District Court of Kentucky issued a standing reference order July 18, 1984 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157 as provided for in the 1984 Bankruptcy Amendments. The Bankruptcy Court may and should, pursuant to that Order, determine the matters involved in this action.

Section 157 requires a district court referral before a bankruptcy court may exercise jurisdiction over an action.

BancOhio National Bank v. Long (In Re Long) · filed 1984-10-30(a)

The bankruptcy court acquires jurisdiction over an action only by referral from the district court.

Section 157(a) allows a bankruptcy judge to proceed with a referred matter while a motion to withdraw the reference is pending.

Lesser v. A-Z Associates (In Re Lion Capital Group) · filed 1984-12-03(a)

Such deference is not warranted here. These matters have been referred here pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), enacted as part of the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984, P.L. 98-353 (July 10, 1984). ... In these circumstances where Congress has acted to resolve the jurisdictional debate that followed Northern Pipeline, the mere pendency of a motion to withdraw the reference is no warrant for delay.

Section 157(a) permits district courts to refer bankruptcy cases and proceedings to bankruptcy judges.

Fidelity Union Life Insurance v. Lorren (In Re Lorren) · filed 1984-12-21(a)

However, the District Court continued to have jurisdiction, but the automatic referral to the Bankruptcy Court by District Court contained in Section 1471(c) of the 1978 law was eliminated and a permissive referral was adopted in 28 U.S.C. Section 157(a) (1984).

Section 157(a) allows district courts to refer bankruptcy cases that were pending when the 1984 Act took effect, including cases already on appeal.

Precon, Inc. v. JRS Realty Trust (In Re Brown) · filed 1985-01-04(a)

Section 157 explicitly provides that the district court may provide that “all” such cases be referred to the bankruptcy judges for the district. ... nor does it exclude cases that were pending on appeal before the district court. Therefore, section 157(a) may properly be construed to encompass these cases.

Section 157 allocates authority between district judges and bankruptcy judges to decide bankruptcy matters; a noncore proceeding does not eliminate federal jurisdiction.

In Re SE Hornsby & Sons Sand and Gravel Co. · filed 1985-01-25

28 U.S.C. § 157 assumes that federal jurisdiction will be exercised; it merely allocates the exercise of that jurisdiction between the district judge and the bankruptcy judge. If the issue is not a core proceeding, the motion should have requested that the judgment or order be issued by the district judge instead of by the bankruptcy judge.

Section 157(a) requires a specific order of reference to send a pending district court action to the bankruptcy court when general referral orders do not cover it.

Helena Chemical Co. v. Manley · filed 1985-01-29(a)

This Court is of the opinion that the general terminology recited in the aforementioned orders is insufficient to refer a pending action in the district court to the bankruptcy court for that same district.

Section 157(a) permits a bankruptcy court, upon referral from the district court, to decide a motion for abstention under § 1334.

Steinberg v. Esposito (In Re Pioneer Development Corp.) · filed 1985-02-26(a)

This Court concludes that pursuant to the referral provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 157, this court has jurisdiction over a motion for abstention brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1334.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer matters related to a bankruptcy case to a bankruptcy judge under a district referral rule.

United States v. Caro · filed 1985-03-22(a)

Each district court, however, may provide that all bankruptcy cases within the district, as well as matters arising in or related to such eases, shall be referred to the bankruptcy judges for that district. 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) (1984). This district has made such a provision. ... 3) to the extent the government seeks to satisfy the above-mentioned judgment out of property of Guillermo Caro, the matter is referred to Bankruptcy Judge Robert Hall of this district.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer proceedings related to a bankruptcy case to bankruptcy judges.

Vreugdenhil v. Hoekstra · filed 1985-09-17(a)

The Bankruptcy Code, as amended in 1984, permits district courts to refer to bankruptcy judges "any or all cases under title 11 [of the United States Code] and any or all proceedings arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11." 28 U.S.C. Sec. 157(a). ... Appellants' claims fall well within the scope of the district court's July 27, 1984 order. ... Hence, the proper forum for the claims raised by appellants was the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(a) permits district courts to refer cases filed under the Bankruptcy Act of 1898 to bankruptcy courts.

Leake v. Chandler · filed 1985-10-24(a)

Thus, § 157(a) of the 1984 Act literally confers upon District Courts the power to refer all Title 11 cases, including 1898 Act cases, to the current Bankruptcy Courts.

Section 157(a) does not extend a reference to bankruptcy judges to a dispute between non-debtors that does not affect the estate and falls outside § 1334 jurisdiction.

Neill v. Borreson (In Re John Peterson Motors, Inc.) · filed 1986-01-10(a)

The dispute in question involves two non-debtors, in no way implicates property of the bankruptcy estate, and thus falls outside of the statutory jurisdictional grant of 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and is outside the ambit of 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) reference to bankruptcy judges.

Section 157 permits a district court to re-refer withdrawn bankruptcy adversary proceedings to the bankruptcy court for resolution of remaining issues.

Duvoisin v. Anderson (In Re Southern Industrial Banking Corp.) · filed 1986-01-16

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157, the cases which are listed on Exhibit A to the pretrial order will be re-referred to the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157(a) permits a general referral order under which the bankruptcy clerk may accept filings in referred classes of cases.

Gianakas v. Exchange National Bank of Chicago (In Re Gianakas) · filed 1985-12-16(a)

Instead, we see § 157 and the referral order as generally authorizing the bankruptcy clerk’s office to accept filings in species of cases which have already been referred by this general fiat.

Section 157(a) permits a bankruptcy court acting under a general reference to decide whether to abstain from a bankruptcy related proceeding without first determining whether it is core.

Krupke v. Lindemann (In Re Krupke) · filed 1986-01-21(a)

Determination of core or non-core status is unnecessary in this case because this bankruptcy court is authorized under the order of reference to exercise initially the district court’s jurisdiction with respect to all bankruptcy related matters. The bankruptcy court may, subject always to the district court’s ultimate power to withdraw reference, abstain from hearing any proceeding which meets one or both of the statutory tests of section 1334(c) whether the proceeding is “core” or not.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer bankruptcy cases and related proceedings to the bankruptcy court; under a general referral, a removal action is filed there.

Ohio Ex Rel. Celebrezze v. Commercial Oil Service, Inc. (In Re Commercial Oil Service, Inc.) · filed 1986-02-21(a)

However, the Trustee’s use of the wrong section is not fatal because pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) the District Court was empowered to make a general referral of all bankruptcy cases to the Bankruptcy Court. General Order No. 84 issued on July 18, 1984 made a general referral of “any and all cases under Title 11 and any or all proceedings arising under Title 11 or arising in or related to a case under Title 11” to the Bankruptcy Court. Accordingly, the Trustee was required to file the removal action with the Bankruptcy Court, which he did and thus this court has jurisdiction to hear the removal action.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer remand and transfer motions to a bankruptcy judge.

Thomasson v. AmSouth Bank, N.A. · filed 1986-04-02(a)

With due respect for the term of art gloss that “proceedings” has acquired in the substantive bankruptcy context, Congress’ use of “any or all proceedings” in section 157(a) is a catchall that does not exclude remand and transfer.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer bankruptcy proceedings, including removed actions, to bankruptcy judges under a general referral order.

In Re Eagle Bend Development · filed 1986-05-22(a)

However, since there is a local rule automatically referring a motion or application to remove to this Bankruptcy Court consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 157, the Court must conclude that 1452(a) controls and that a party to remove a claim or cause of action may file the application to remove in the Bankruptcy Court or the District Court. Local Rule 31c then refers the action to this Court.

Section 157 permits a district court’s referral to include its pendent and ancillary jurisdiction.

Total Petroleum, Inc. v. Coral Petroleum, Inc. (In Re Coral Petroleum, Inc.) · filed 1986-08-01(a)

That the district court has been authorized to delegate some aspects of its jurisdiction to the bankruptcy court under § 157 is an inconsequential distinction. The bankruptcy court, in asserting pendent and ancillary jurisdiction, is merely exercising the district court’s powers of incidental jurisdiction, which have been delegated to the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer bankruptcy proceedings to bankruptcy judges through a standing order.

Marketta Development, Ltd. v. North American Funding Corp. (In Re North American Funding Corp.) · filed 1986-09-11(a)

Bankruptcy judges acquire jurisdiction over only those proceedings which the district court refers to them. Therefore, in a certain sense, the district court is the bankruptcy court and each district court may fashion a method of referring a proceeding to the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(a) permits immediate, automatic referral to bankruptcy court under a district court’s general reference order.

Alliance Communications Group, Inc. v. Northern Telecom, Inc. · filed 1986-09-26(a)

Referral to the bankruptcy court under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) is immediate and automatic, and Alliance’s motion is granted.

Section 157(a) treats a motion to change venue as a proceeding that a district court may refer to a bankruptcy judge.

Burlingame v. Whilden (In Re Whilden) · filed 1986-10-03(a)

After careful consideration, this Court is satisfied that a Motion to Change Venue is a “proceeding” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(a).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a motion to change venue of a bankruptcy case as a core proceeding concerning administration of the estate.

In Re Baltimore Food Systems, Inc. · filed 1986-12-29(b)(2)(A)

Since a motion to change the venue of a bankruptcy case is a “matter concerning the administration of the estate” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b), it is a “core” proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer bankruptcy proceedings to its bankruptcy judges.

Fingerman v. Harris-Hub Co. (In Re Robert's Furniture, Inc.) · filed 1987-01-22(a)

Further, 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) provides that a district court may refer such matters to the bankruptcy judges for that district. The District Court for the Southern District of Ohio has made such an order and it was pursuant to that order that the complaint commenced by the plaintiff in this case was filed in this court. There can be no valid question raised about subject matter jurisdiction in this case, or the propriety of the orders entered in this adversary proceeding by this court.

Section 157(a) allows a district court to refer bankruptcy cases and proceedings to a bankruptcy court while retaining jurisdiction over them.

Weaver Adams v. Sidney Schafer & Associates · filed 1987-02-17(a)

Thus, the district court maintains all of the jurisdiction applicable to bankruptcy matters subject only to its reference of cases and proceedings to the bankruptcy courts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 157(a).

Section 157(a) permits, but does not require, a district court to refer bankruptcy-related proceedings to bankruptcy judges.

National Acceptance Co. of California v. Levin · filed 1987-06-11(a)

Title 28, United States Code, section 157(a), upon which plaintiff also relies, is permissive and not mandatory, i.e., ... Rule 55 having been rescinded, there no longer exists a basis for automatically referring “related matters” to the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(a) permits a district court’s standing order to refer a title 11 case to the bankruptcy court, including authority over property of the estate.

Matter of Palmer · filed 1987-10-15(a)

The standing order of reference of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dated August 28, 1986, effective July 10, 1984, issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), refers the debtor’s title 11 case to this court together with the district court’s preemptive jurisdiction over property, thus precluding its disposition in the matrimonial court.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to revise its general reference so that bankruptcy judges initially hear venue transfer motions and submit recommendations to the district court.

In Re Retirement Inn at Forest Lane, Ltd. · filed 1988-02-22(a)

After careful consideration of the development of jurisdiction over motions for transfer of venue in bankruptcy cases, this court concludes that the present procedure of the Utah Bankruptcy Court in automatically transmitting to the district court all motions for transfer of venue in bankruptcy cases is not in keeping with the spirit and contemporary interpretation of the following pertinent statutory provisions: 28 U.S.C. § 1412, 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) and (d), Bankruptcy Rules 1014, 5011 and 9001(4), and Local Rule B-106. Consequently, this court hereby implements a new procedure regarding the disposition of all motions for transfer of venue of bankruptcy cases or adversary proceedings.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer remand motions to a bankruptcy judge for final determination.

Bank of New England, N.A. v. Hanson Industries, Inc. (In Re Hanson Industries, Inc.) · filed 1988-03-07(a)

As a result, nothing in § 157 or the Supreme Court’s decision in Marathon prohibit the district court from referring remand motions to the bankruptcy court for final determination.

Section 157 does not require a damages suit for violating a bankruptcy discharge to be brought only in bankruptcy court.

Van Meter v. American State Bank · filed 1988-08-01

Defendant American State Bank contends that count 2 of the complaint, which alleges a violation of this statute, should be dismissed because only the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction over damage suits based on such violations. Defendant American State Bank cites no authority for this proposition, and the court has found none. The statute relating to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy courts clearly is permissive, not mandatory. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), § 157(b)(1), § 157(c)(1), § 157(c)(2). The court believes that this argument is therefore without merit.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a motion to transfer venue as a core proceeding concerning estate administration, on which a bankruptcy court may enter a final order.

Storage Equities, Inc. v. Delisle · filed 1988-09-08(b)(2)(A)

Accordingly, the court concludes that the issue of a transfer is a core proceeding on which the bankruptcy court may properly enter a final order.

Section 157(a) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear a motion to transfer venue when the district court has referred bankruptcy matters to its bankruptcy judges.

Mann v. Michael Industries, Inc. (In Re Inland Shoe Manufacturing Co.) · filed 1988-08-24(a)

Although Section 1412 would appear to restrict the authority to the district court for transferring cases, 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) expands the scope of § 1412 to permit bankruptcy judges to hear motions to change venue, where the district court, by its general order of reference, refers all bankruptcy matters to bankruptcy judges for that district.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer a proceeding related to a Title 11 case to the bankruptcy court.

Lencoke Trucking, Inc. v. Fleet Sales & Leasing Corp. (In Re Lencoke Trucking, Inc.) · filed 1989-04-24(a)

This Court therefore has subject matter jurisdiction and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), may transfer it to the Bankruptcy Court (which, essentially, is an adjunct of this Court).

Section 157(a) requires a district court reference before a bankruptcy judge may hear a proceeding; a case already pending in district court does not become referred merely because it later becomes related to a bankruptcy.

Thomas Steel Corp. v. Bethlehem Rebar Industries, Inc. · filed 1989-06-23(a)

Under the 1984 amendments, “bankruptcy court” is only a name given to the bankruptcy judges of a judicial district, who constitute a “unit of the district court,” 28 U.S.C. § 151, and a bankruptcy judge can hear a matter if and only if (1) the matter is within the bankruptcy jurisdiction granted to the district courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1334, (2) the district court has referred the matter to the bankruptcy judges for that district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), and (3) the district court has not withdrawn its reference of the matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). ... However, this result would also be inappropriate, because, in this court’s view, the proceeding was never referred to the bankruptcy court in the first place.

A district court’s general reference under § 157(a) gives the bankruptcy court jurisdiction to consider petitions under every operating chapter of the Bankruptcy Code, including Chapter 11.

In re Mandalay Shores Cooperative Housing Ass'n · filed 1989-06-12(a)

It needs no elaborate discussion to point out the obvious that once the District Court entered a general reference pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) this Court has subject matter jurisdiction to consider all petitions filed under any and all of the operating chapters of the Bankruptcy Code including, of course, Chapter 11.

Section 157(a) permits district courts to refer bankruptcy proceedings to bankruptcy courts, allowing the bankruptcy courts to issue declaratory judgments in adversary proceedings within their jurisdiction.

Korhumel, Inc. v. Korhumel Industries, Inc. (In Re Korhumel Industries, Inc.) · filed 1989-07-28(a)

Section 157(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) (1984 Supp.), provides for referral of “any or all cases under title 11 and any or all proceedings arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11” to the bankruptcy courts. Through standing referral orders such as this district’s Local Rule 2.33(a) the district courts effectively delegate their power to hear certain declaratory judgment actions to the bankruptcy courts. ... This court thus concludes that, notwithstanding the lack of authorization for declaratory judgments under 28 U.S.C. § 2201, the bankruptcy courts may issue declaratory judgments in adversary proceedings which are properly within their jurisdiction.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy judge presiding over a reorganization to also preside over adversary proceedings affecting its assets.

Frates v. Weinshienk · filed 1989-08-10

Kaiser correctly points out that 28 U.S.C. § 157, by permitting the presiding judge in a reorganization to preside over adversary proceedings affecting the assets, contemplates that bankruptcy judges will encounter situations similar to that before us with some frequency.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy judge to preside over both the administrative and adversarial portions of a bankruptcy case.

Frates v. Weinshienk · filed 1989-08-10

A bankruptcy judge may preside over both the administrative and adversarial portions of a bankruptcy case. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 157.

Section 157 permits a district court to refer a SIPA liquidation to a bankruptcy court at its discretion and to withdraw the referral.

Turner v. Davis, Gillenwater & Lynch (In Re Investment Bankers, Inc.) · filed 1990-05-15(a), (d)

Furthermore, I conclude that, although a bankruptcy removal under 28 U.S.C. § 157 is discretionary with the district court, and a SIPA liquidation removal under 15 U.S.C. § 78eee(b)(4) appears mandatory by its language, the difference is insignificant. As a practical matter all bankruptcy cases can be removed even though they can be withdrawn pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). By reconciling BAFJA and SIPA, removal of SIPA liquidations can be accomplished at the discretion of the district court and thereby fulfill the intent of Congress in BAFJA to place supervision of bankruptcy courts in the district courts.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer an action involving bankruptcy estate property to its bankruptcy judges.

Holcomb v. Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc. · filed 1990-09-14(a)

The Court has appropriately reviewed plaintiffs’ objections de novo and finds they do not change the substance of the Magistrate’s rulings which are affirmed and adopted. ... In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) and Standing Order No. 10, this action should be referred to the bankruptcy judges of this District.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer a related civil action to the bankruptcy court; an action already pending in the district court requires a referral order when the local rule does not refer it automatically.

United States v. Croley (In Re Croley) · filed 1990-12-04(a)

Although 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) authorizes the district court to refer to the bankruptcy court civil actions related to a bankruptcy case, the district court has not seen fit to refer Civil Action No. 89-0885 GAG to this bankruptcy court. ... If Civil Action No. 89-0885 GAG is to be referred here, it will have to be by an order of the district court.

Section 157(a) permits district courts to refer proceedings arising under, arising in, or related to bankruptcy cases to bankruptcy judges, including proceedings that apply state law.

In Re The Careau Group · filed 1991-01-15(a)

Section 1334(b) gives district courts original jurisdiction over civil proceedings arising under Title 11, or arising in or related to cases under Title 11. The district court, in turn, may refer these cases to bankruptcy judges pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 157(a). These cases include matters involving the application of state law.

Section 157(a) permits district courts to refer bankruptcy proceedings involving state law to bankruptcy judges.

Careau Group v. Juan De La Cruz Farm Workers Pension Fund (In re the Careau Group) · filed 1991-01-15(a)

The district court, in turn, may refer these cases to bankruptcy judges pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a). These cases include matters involving the application of state law.

Section 157’s allocation of authority between bankruptcy and district judges provides sufficient district court supervision to satisfy Article III.

In Re Rheuban · filed 1991-06-13

It is impossible to imagine a statutory scheme that could give Article III protected judges more supervision over the exercise of the judicial power of the United States by bankruptcy judges who are not protected by Article III, Section 1. ... It is my conclusion that the 1984 Amendments do not violate Article III, Section 1 because they fall within the adjunct exception.

Section 157 permits a district court to refer a non-core proceeding with a jury demand to bankruptcy court for nondispositive pretrial matters.

Travelers Insurance Co. v. Goldberg · filed 1992-01-10(a)

This Court agrees that the right to a jury trial in the District Court does not automatically prohibit a discretionary referral to the Bankruptcy Court for the limited purposes of pretrial management. The Court therefore concludes that a referral in this case is allowable under § 157, although its scope would have to be limited to nondispositive pretrial matters.

Section 157(a) permits referral to a bankruptcy court of a counterclaim for a money judgment arising in or related to a bankruptcy case.

Claxton v. Student Loan Marketing Ass'n (In Re Claxton) · filed 1992-05-19(a)

It has been properly referred to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a). It has been admitted by debtors to be a core proceeding in its own right, see HEAF’s counterclaim ¶ 2, debtors’ reply to counterclaim ¶ 2. Debtors’ argument that such a counterclaim is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court is without merit.

Section 157(a) provides for referral of bankruptcy cases to the bankruptcy court, so the district court properly declined to decide an exemption issue arising from a bankruptcy petition.

Nieves v. Santa Clara Land Title Company Gail Christenson, Christenson Realty Yuet-Lin Tang, AKA Elaine Tang Itt · filed 1992-09-01(a)

Second, because Nieves appears to be seeking relief pursuant to the filing of his bankruptcy petition, the district court properly declined jurisdiction to consider the extent to which the bankruptcy laws preserved Nieves's homestead exemption. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) (bankruptcy cases are automatically referred to the bankruptcy court); 28 U.S.C. § 158(a) (district courts have bankruptcy appellate jurisdiction).

Section 157(a) permits referral of a district court case to the local bankruptcy court through a general or specific order.

MATV-Cable Satellite, Inc. v. Phoenix Leasing, Inc. · filed 1993-07-09(a)

Generally, the way to transfer (in the loose sense of the word) a case from a non-bankruptcy court to the local district court is by removal and the way to transfer a case from a district court to the local bankruptcy court is by referral, be it by the general order or by a specific order.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer pretrial matters to a bankruptcy court after withdrawing the reference for a jury trial.

Jobin v. Kloepfer (In Re M & L Business MacHine Co.) · filed 1993-11-02(a)

In the meantime, the bankruptcy court retains jurisdiction over pre-trial matters, including the instant motion for an award of fees and costs in connection with Kloepfer’s motion to compel.

Section 157(a) does not require a district court to expressly cite the section when referring a proceeding to a bankruptcy judge.

In re Moody · filed 1995-01-09(a)

We have not found, nor has Solomon supplied, any basis for requiring an explicit recitation of § 157 when a district court makes a referral under that statute.

Section 157(a) limits referrals to bankruptcy courts to cases under title 11 and proceedings arising under, arising in, or related to a bankruptcy case; it does not authorize referral of broader supplemental jurisdiction.

Boyajian v. DeLuca (In Re Remington Development Group, Inc.) · filed 1995-04-11(a)

Nowhere does § 157(a) authorize the district court to delegate more than “arising under,” “arising in” and “related to” bankruptcy jurisdiction to the bankruptcy court.

Section 157 does not permit a district court to refer a claim resting only on supplemental jurisdiction to a bankruptcy court.

Matter of Walker · filed 1995-05-08(a)

Absent from this grant of jurisdiction is any indication that district courts may refer to bankruptcy courts any cases that were before the district courts only on the basis of supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer a complaint related to a pending bankruptcy case to the bankruptcy court.

Lowenschuss v. Resorts International, Inc. · filed 1996-01-29(a)

As explained below, the Complaint is related to the Resorts First Bankruptcy within the meaning of Section 157(a). It is therefore appropriate for the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, New Jersey to address the Summary Judgment Motion and the defenses asserted by Resorts.

Section 157 permits a district court to refer a civil action to the bankruptcy court to determine whether its claims are related to a bankruptcy case.

Harder v. Desert Breezes Master Ass'n · filed 1996-02-16

The Court will therefore refer this matter to the bankruptcy court for a determination, first, of whether any or all of plaintiffs’ causes of action against any or all of the defendants are related to plaintiff George Harder’s bankruptcy petition.

Section 157(a) permits referral to bankruptcy judges of a proceeding that could affect the estate in a title 11 case.

Richardson v. United Parcel Service · filed 1996-05-24(a)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), “[e]ach district court may provide that any or all cases under title 11 and any or all proceedings arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11 shall be referred to the bankruptcy judges for the district.” ... Plaintiffs employment discrimination case is related to the bankruptcy as it could conceivably have an effect on the estate being administered in the bankruptcy. ... Accordingly, the Court must refer this case to the Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer only cases and proceedings arising under, arising in, or related to bankruptcy; it does not permit referral based solely on supplemental jurisdiction.

Goldstein v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A. (In Re Goldstein) · filed 1996-09-26(a)

Nowhere does § 157(a) authorize the district court to delegate more than “arising under,” “arising in” and “related to” bankruptcy jurisdiction to the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(a) permits district courts to refer bankruptcy cases and proceedings arising under, arising in, or related to a bankruptcy case to bankruptcy judges.

Adams v. Prudential Securities, Inc. (In Re Foundation for New Era Philanthropy) · filed 1996-10-15(a)

On the contrary, 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) makes it very clear that the district court may only refer to bankruptcy judges bankruptcy cases and bankruptcy proceedings which arise in or under the Code (core matters) and related proceedings.

Section 157(a) permits referral to bankruptcy judges of bankruptcy cases and proceedings arising under, arising in, or related to those cases, but does not authorize referral of claims within the district court’s supplemental jurisdiction alone.

Simmons v. Johnson, Curney & Fields, P.C. (In Re Simmons) · filed 1997-02-03(a)

The 1990 enactment did not grant bankruptcy courts the power to hear matters over which the district court gained jurisdiction under this supplemental jurisdiction statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) (providing that a district court judge may only refer “any or all cases under title 11” and “any or all proceedings arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11” to bankruptcy judges).

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer bankruptcy matters to bankruptcy judges, but the court may decline referral when unresolved claims and a jury demand favor keeping the case in district court.

Holcomb v. Norwest Financial, Inc. · filed 1998-01-15(a)

28 U.S.C. § 157(a) permits a district court to refer bankruptcy cases to bankruptcy judges. ... Given that the RICO claims have not been dismissed and that the: plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial, I decline to refer this matter to the bankruptcy court at this time.

Section 157 does not authorize a district court to refer a diversity case to a bankruptcy judge.

In Re JMP-NEWCOR International, Inc. · filed 1998-06-16(a)

Title 28, § 157 does not authorize district courts to delegate diversity cases to bankruptcy courts.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer bankruptcy cases and related proceedings to its bankruptcy judges.

Sharp Electronics Corp. v. Deutsche Financial Services Corp. · filed 1998-06-19(a)

The effect of these two provisions is that the district courts are vested with jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases, but a district court may refer its bankruptcy jurisdiction to the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(a) authorizes district courts to refer bankruptcy matters to bankruptcy judges on terms that may regulate interlocutory appeals within the district.

Foreign Car Center, Inc. v. Salem Suede, Inc. (In Re Salem Suede, Inc.) · filed 1998-06-24(a)

As generally understood, this is an authorization for “referr[al]” on stated terms and conditions, and those stated terms and conditions may include regulation of interlocutory appeals within a district, from an order of a bankruptcy court to a judge of the district court.

Section 157 permits a general order of reference but does not require one.

In Re Dembrosky · filed 1999-05-10

28 U.S.C. § 157 does not require the general order of reference. It permits it.

A district court’s referral to bankruptcy judges reaches a civil proceeding only if it is at least related to a Title 11 case.

Evans & Associates, CPAs, Inc. v. Macnichol (In re Macnichol) · filed 1999-09-01(a)

The outer limits of the district court’s referral to its bankruptcy judges require that the civil proceeding be “related to” a case under Title 11.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer issues arising under Title 11 to the bankruptcy court.

Molloy v. Primus Automotive Financial Services · filed 2000-03-30(a)

The six issues that plaintiff seeks to have the Bankruptcy Court resolve clearly arise under Title 11 and thus could be referred under § 157(a).

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer title 11 cases and proceedings arising under, arising in, or related to title 11 cases to bankruptcy judges.

Buckingham v. Baptist Memorial Hospital-Golden Triangle, Inc. · filed 2002-09-17(a)

Section 157(a) of the Bankruptcy Code states that “[e]ach district court may provide that any or all cases under title 11 and any or all proceedings arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11 shall be referred to the bankruptcy judges for the district.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(a). ... While there appears to be no Fifth Circuit precedent in this area, the Court agrees with the reasoning of Goldstein. As was the case for Goldstein, whether Buckingham wins or loses her case, the bankruptcy estate is unaffected.

Section 157(a) covers proceedings arising under title 11, arising in a title 11 case, or related to a title 11 case for referral to a bankruptcy court.

Jamaica Shipping Co. v. Orient Shipping Rotterdam, B.V. · filed 2002-12-17(a)

Without findings by the Bankruptcy Court, we are unable to determine whether this adversary action constitutes “[a] proceeding! ] arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11,” as required for the Bankruptcy Court to have jurisdiction over it. 28 U.S.C. § 157(a). Accordingly, we also affirm the District Court’s decision to permit the Bankruptcy Court to rule on the jurisdictional question in the first instance.

Section 157(a) allows a district court to refer bankruptcy cases and proceedings within its jurisdiction to bankruptcy judges.

Unnamed Individuals v. Academy, Inc. (In Re Academy, Inc.) · filed 2002-12-31(a)

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), the district court may refer cases and proceedings within its bankruptcy jurisdiction to the judges of the bankruptcy court.

Section 157 permits district courts to refer bankruptcy cases to bankruptcy judges and authorizes bankruptcy judges to enter orders and judgments in core proceedings.

In Re Allied Products Corp. · filed 2003-01-06(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(N)

When presiding over a referred case, a bankruptcy judge has jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), to enter appropriate orders and judgments in core proceedings within the case.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer a removed bankruptcy case to the bankruptcy court.

Richards v. Farah (In Re Farah) · filed 2005-03-22(a)

The District Court also acted properly when it referred the case, after removal, to the Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(a).

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer bankruptcy matters to a bankruptcy judge while jurisdiction remains vested in the district court.

Sassower v. Starr (In re Sassower) · filed 2006-01-10(a)

Because Federal jurisdiction over Sassower’s bankruptcy case and this adversary proceeding is vested in the District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1334, and merely referred under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) to a bankruptcy judge who “serve[s] as a judicial officer[ ] of the ... District Court,” Judge Leisure’s injunction must be deemed applicable to an action commenced in the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157 does not authorize referral to a bankruptcy court when the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Marotta Gund Budd & Dzera LLC v. Costa · filed 2006-03-31

If this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, however, it necessarily lacks the authority to refer the case to the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(a) does not permit a district court to refer claims that fall only within its supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367 to a bankruptcy court.

Premium of America, LLC v. Sanchez (In Re Premium Escrow Services, Inc.) · filed 2006-05-23(a)

The court’s ruling today necessarily concerns only such jurisdiction as can be transferred by a district court to this court pursuant to § 157. Plainly, claims that can be heard only pursuant to § 1367 do not fall into this category.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to hear a proceeding arising from an ineligible debtor’s petition that triggers the automatic stay.

In Re Thompson · filed 2006-06-05(a)

Congress must have contemplated that "cases” and "proceedings” were two different animals, otherwise, the use of the term "proceedings” would be superfluous. The filing of an ineligible petition that triggers the automatic stay is a "proceeding” over which this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer bankruptcy related proceedings to the bankruptcy court.

In Re Application of Buran · filed 2006-09-11(a)

Having resolved the procedural issues, the substantive issues are properly referred to the Bankruptcy Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) and Rule 5.1(g) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Court for the Western District of New York.

Section 157(a) permits district courts to refer bankruptcy cases and proceedings within their arising under, arising in, or related to jurisdiction, but does not authorize referral based solely on supplemental jurisdiction.

Enron Corp. v. Citigroup, Inc. (In Re Enron Corp.) · filed 2006-10-11(a)

28 U.S.C. § 157 only authorizes district courts to refer to bankruptcy courts cases and proceedings that fall within the district court’s “arising in,” “arising under,” or “related to” jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334. As such, there is no statutory basis for bankruptcy courts to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer bankruptcy proceedings to a bankruptcy court, including a motion for sanctions under § 1927 when the district court’s referral order covers it.

In Re Schaefer Salt Recovery, Inc. · filed 2008-09-09(a)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 157 and the Standing Order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, which delegate authority to the bankruptcy courts in the District of New Jersey to hear Title 11 cases as well as “any and all proceedings” necessary to hear and decide those cases, the Bankruptcy Court had the authority to impose sanctions against Khoudary under § 1927.

Section 157(a) permits referral to the bankruptcy court of a proceeding whose outcome may affect the bankruptcy estate under a district’s general order of reference.

Navon v. Mariculture Products Ltd. · filed 2008-10-29(a)

There is ample justification for finding that this action falls within the terms of 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(a) and 1334(b), and therefore it should be referred to the bankruptcy court in accordance with the 1984 General Order of Reference.

Section 157 permits a district court to refer bankruptcy cases and proceedings to a bankruptcy court.

Savoy Senior Housing Corp. v. TRABC MINISTRIES, LLC · filed 2009-02-11

The question that defendant’s motions to dismiss really raises is whether this case should be referred to the Bankruptcy Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157. I agree that it should.

Section 157 lets district judges refer matters to bankruptcy judges and transfer bankruptcy cases back to district court.

In re Greene · filed 2009-02-05

Bankruptcy judges and district judges sit on a “unified court,” and district judges have both the power to refer matters to bankruptcy judges and the authority to transfer a bankruptcy case back to district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 157; In re Dorner, 343 F.3d 910, 914 (7th Cir.2003).

Section 157(a) permits referral of bankruptcy matters to bankruptcy courts, but does not authorize referral of matters based solely on diversity jurisdiction.

Estate of Fisher v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (In Re Fort Worth Osteopathic Hospital, Inc.) · filed 2009-04-15(a)

28 U.S.C. § 1332’s grant of jurisdiction extends only to the District Court; the District Court has no power, as exists under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) for bankruptcy jurisdiction, to refer to the bankruptcy courts matters as to which jurisdiction exists by reason of diversity of citizenship.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer a proceeding to bankruptcy court when its outcome could conceivably affect a bankruptcy estate.

National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corp. v. Prosser · filed 2009-08-07(a)

Because the present action concerns whether the Releases bar the 2008 Virgin Islands action, it conceivably affects the estates’ ability to recovery in the 2008 Virgin Islands action. Accordingly, for at least this reason, the court concludes that it may properly refer this matter to the bankruptcy court.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy judge to hear and determine a Bankruptcy Act case covered by a district court’s standing referral.

In Re Dunning Bros. Co. · filed 2009-09-04(b)(2)

The standing referral of Bankruptcy Act cases to bankruptcy judges of this district remains in effect. Hence, a bankruptcy judge may hear and determine this case. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157 does not support referring a challenge to a bankruptcy court’s general procedure when the challenge is unrelated to a particular bankruptcy case.

United States v. Carroll (In Re Bankruptcy Court's Use of a Standardized Form of Chapter 13 Confirmation Order That Enjo · filed 2010-01-20(a)

A referral to the Bankruptcy Court of the Complaint and Petition is not appropriate under E.D. Mich. LR 83.50, which implements 28 U.S.C. § 157. The issue raised by the IRS in its Complaint and Petition for Writ of Mandamus is not related to a particular bankruptcy action in that it does not impact a particular bankruptcy estate nor does it seek to determine the validity of a certain debt.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer bankruptcy cases and proceedings to its bankruptcy judges; assigning referred cases among those judges does not limit their jurisdiction.

Wilborn v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In Re Wilborn) · filed 2010-06-18(a)

Section 157(a) permits district courts to refer to bankruptcy courts “any or all cases” and “any or all proceedings.” ... The allocation of cases among the bankruptcy judges after referral is an administrative matter, not a jurisdictional issue.

Section 157(a) permits district courts to refer any or all bankruptcy cases and proceedings to bankruptcy judges.

Wilborn v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2010-06-18(a)

Section 157(a) permits district courts to refer to bankruptcy courts “any or all cases” and “any or all proceedings.”

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer claims concerning enforcement of a bankruptcy discharge to the bankruptcy court.

Maddox v. AUBURN UNIVERSITY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION · filed 2010-12-01(a)

The Motions to Dismiss Counts Three and Four are DENIED to the extent that these claims for contempt of court are referred to the Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Alabama, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) and this court’s General Order of Reference-Bankruptcy Matters, entered on April 25, 1985, to be considered and determined in relation to its Case No. 08-80558.

Section 157 defines the bankruptcy court’s referral jurisdiction for matters referred from a district court.

Timmerman v. Eich · filed 2011-09-12

Thus, § 1334 is the statute defining federal court jurisdiction as to bankruptcy matters, while § 157 defines the “referral jurisdiction” of the bankruptcy court for matters referred from the district court.

Section 157 provides for district courts to refer bankruptcy matters to bankruptcy courts for final determination or proposed findings and conclusions.

Farooqi v. Carroll (In re Carroll) · filed 2011-12-13

Congress also provided further procedures in 28 U.S.C. § 157 pursuant to which the district court may refer bankruptcy cases and proceedings to the bankruptcy courts for either final determination or proposed findings and conclusions. So, as relevant here, this Court exercises authority with respect to Carroll’s underlying chapter 13 bankruptcy case and the Adversary pursuant to a standing order of reference adopted in this District on August 3, 1984.

Section 157(a) allows a district court with bankruptcy jurisdiction to refer Title 11 cases and proceedings to a bankruptcy court.

In re: Santana Cline v. · filed 2012-06-01(a)

If a district court has bankruptcy jurisdiction over a case, 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) allows the district court to refer the case to the bankruptcy court. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) and Local General Order No. 05-02, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio has referred all cases under Title 11 of the United States Code, and all actions, matters or proceedings arising under Title 11 of the United States Code to the bankruptcy court. The U.S. Trustee’s motion to dismiss Debtor’s case for cause under 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c) is an action arising under Title 11; therefore, the bankruptcy court had proper subject matter jurisdiction to enter default judgment in favor of the U.S. Trustee on the U.S. Trustee’s motion to dismiss.

Section 157 permits, but does not require, district courts to refer bankruptcy cases and proceedings to bankruptcy courts.

Wallach v. Rothstein (In re Nanodynamics, Inc.) · filed 2012-07-16(a)

28 U.S.C. § 157 permits (but does not require) district courts to refer bankruptcy case matters, and proceedings to the bankruptcy courts for certain purposes.

Section 157(a) does not permit a district court to refer a case to a bankruptcy court when the district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.

Hutchins v. Shatz, Schwartz & Fentin, P.C. · filed 2013-02-28(a)

Simply put, a federal district court may not refer a case to the bankruptcy court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) and Local Rule 201 if the district court itself does not have subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 157(a) permits district courts to refer bankruptcy cases and proceedings to bankruptcy judges, and § 157(b)(2)(B) treats exemption determinations as core proceedings that bankruptcy courts may decide subject to appellate review.

In re DeMarco · filed 2013-05-10(a), (b)(2)(B)

Pursuant to authority granted to the district courts at 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), the district court for the Western District of Tennessee has referred to the bankruptcy judges of this district all cases arising under title 11 and all proceedings arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11. ... The determination of objections to exemptions are core proceedings arising under the Bankruptcy Code. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B). The bankruptcy court has authority to enter an order determining whether a debtor is able to claim an exemption in particular property of the estate subject only to appellate review.

Section 157(a) limits referrals to bankruptcy judges to matters covered by § 1334 and does not authorize referrals based on supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367.

Miller v. Bruemmer (In re Bruemmer Development, LLC) · filed 2014-07-18(a)

While § 157 does contain this link to matters of the type covered by the § 1334 jurisdictional statute, § 157 contains no link to the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 157(a) permits district courts to refer bankruptcy proceedings to bankruptcy courts; failure to refer does not deprive the district court of jurisdiction.

Wellness Wireless, Inc. v. Infopia America, L.L.C. · filed 2015-03-24(a)

The bankruptcy courts are within the district courts’ purview, and cases are assigned to the bankruptcy courts by way of referral from a district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(a). Normally, cases are automatically so assigned pursuant to local court rules. Id. At most, the district court arguably could have referred this case to the bankruptcy court pursuant to Local Rules of the Southern District of Texas. S.D. Tex. General Order 2012-6. Any such failure to refer, however, is not raised before us and in any event is not jurisdictional.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer bankruptcy jurisdiction by standing order for cases and proceedings commenced after the order.

Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (In re Madoff) · filed 2015-06-02(a)

While 28 U.S.C. § 1334 grants the district court jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases and proceedings in the first instance, 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) authorizes the district court to refer its bankruptcy jurisdiction to the bankruptcy judges in the district. ... The defendants assume but cite no authority to support their central argument that the District Court cannot refer its bankruptcy jurisdiction prospectively. In fact, courts in this district have uniformly recognized that the District Court’s standing orders of reference confer bankruptcy court jurisdiction in cases and proceedings commenced after the date of the standing order of reference.

Section 157(a) permits claims under 11 U.S.C. §§ 110 and 526–528 to be referred to bankruptcy courts for adjudication.

In re Bascus · filed 2016-03-30(a)

Congress, through 28 U.S.C. § 157 has assigned the adjudication of these claims to bankruptcy courts.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer proceedings arising under title 11 to bankruptcy judges in its district.

Jones v. CitiMortgage, Inc. · filed 2016-11-09(a)

Accordingly, we vacate the dismissal with prejudice of Count Five and remand to the district court with instructions to refer the matter to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia in accordance with the district court’s procedures.

Section 157(a) permits referral of bankruptcy proceedings to bankruptcy judges, and a referred § 362(k) claim must be brought in bankruptcy court.

Galope v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. · filed 2016-12-14(a)

As to Galope’s federal claim under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k), the district court properly dismissed it because it could only have been brought before the bankruptcy court. See C.D. Cal. G.O. 13-05 (July 1, 2013); 28 U.S.C. § 157(a).

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer bankruptcy cases and proceedings to a bankruptcy court.

Colonial Penniman, LLC v. Williams (In re Colonial Penniman, LLC) · filed 2017-08-18(a)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), a district court may refer to the bankruptcy court “any or all cases under title 11 and any or all proceedings arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(a). ... Because a bankruptcy court reviews matters referred to it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), questions pertaining to diversity jurisdiction do not arise in this Court, nor any other bankruptcy court.

Section 157(a) permits district courts to refer all bankruptcy cases and proceedings to bankruptcy courts.

Brookview Apartments, L.L.C. v. Bronson Family Trust (In re Know Weigh, L.L.C.) · filed 2017-08-31(a)

District courts may refer all bankruptcy cases and proceedings to the bankruptcy court—and in this district has done so.

Section 157(a) permits district courts to refer bankruptcy cases and proceedings to bankruptcy judges, who may exercise jurisdiction over cases under title 11 and civil proceedings arising under, arising in, or related to such cases.

In Play Membership Golf, Inc. v. Billy Casper Golf, LLC (In re In Play Membership Golf, Inc.) · filed 2017-09-29(a)

According to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(a) and 1334, bankruptcy courts, upon referral from the federal district courts, may exercise jurisdiction over three types of proceedings: (1) cases under title 11; (2) civil proceedings “arising under” or “arising in” a case under title 11; and (3) civil proceedings “related to” cases under title 11.

Section 157(a) supplies jurisdiction over nondischargeability complaints, while § 157(b)(2)(I) makes such a matter a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy court may enter final findings, conclusions, and judgment.

Daniel v. Del Valle (In re Del Valle) · filed 2017-10-05(a), (b)(2)(I)

The bankruptcy court has jurisdiction over a complaint for nondischargeability of debt under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a). This matter is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I), which empowers this court to enter the final findings and conclusions and judgment in the case.

Section 157(a) allows district courts to refer bankruptcy cases and proceedings to the bankruptcy courts of the district.

Wilkins v Rymes Heating Oils et al · filed 2018-03-07(a)

In turn, district courts may, as this District has, see LR 77.4(a), refer to the bankruptcy courts of the district “any or all cases under title 11 and any or all proceedings arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11,” 28 U.S.C. § 157(a).

Section 157 permits district courts to refer bankruptcy cases and related proceedings to bankruptcy judges, who may hear and determine core proceedings and enter orders subject to review.

Critique Servs., LLC v. Reed (In Re Reed) · filed 2018-04-25(a), (b)(1)

This case does not involve an “attorney ethics investigation” or issues reserved for an Article III court. Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a): “Each district court may provide that any or all cases under title 11 [bankruptcy] and any or all proceedings arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11 shall be referred to the bankruptcy judges for the district.” The Eastern District of Missouri has implemented the full scope of § 157(a). E.D.Mo. R. 81 - 9.01(B). By 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1): “Bankruptcy judges may hear and determine all cases under title 11 and all core proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in a case under title 11, referred under subsection (a) of this section, and may enter appropriate orders and judgments, subject to review under section 158 of this title.”

Section 157(a) allows district courts to refer bankruptcy cases and proceedings to bankruptcy judges.

Barry v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. · filed 2018-07-06(a)

Even in light of this jurisdictional power, Congress authorized district courts to refer any such cases or proceedings to bankruptcy judges. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(a); Exec. Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison, 134 S. Ct. 2165, 2171 (2014). ... In sum, while this Court has the authority to refer a cause of action arising under Title 11 to the bankruptcy court pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 83.13,14 that discretionary right does not deprive this Court of its original jurisdiction granted in 28 U.S.C. § 1334 to hear Ms. Barry’s cause of action.

Failure to refer a removed case to a bankruptcy court under § 157(a) can be harmless when the district court could have withdrawn the case for cause under § 157(d).

State Savings & Loan Association of Lubbock, State Federal Savings & Loan Association of Lubbock v. Liberty Trust Company · filed 1989-02-22(a)

Although under the provisions of § 157(a) the district court automatically should have referred the case to a bankruptcy court after removal, ... the error was harmless. The district court, under 28 U.S. C. § 157(d) (Supp. IV 1986), could have withdrawn the case from the bankruptcy court upon its own motion for cause.

Section 157 permits a district court to refer a proceeding to bankruptcy court when it arises under or in Title 11 or is related to a Title 11 case.

Main v. Round Hill Investments LLC · filed 2018-11-15(a)

Consistent with the authority granted by 28 U.S.C. § 157, Local Rule 201, provides that any case “arising under Title 11 or arising in or related to a case under Title 11 shall be referred to the judges of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts.” Thus, a case may be referred to the bankruptcy court if it (1) “arises under” title 11, (2) “arises in” a title 11 case, or (3) is “relate[s] to” a title 11 case.