28 U.S.C. § 157

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer bankruptcy proceedings to bankruptcy judges only when the district court has jurisdiction over them.

Akil Management Services B v. v. Parhelion Incorporated · filed 2019-08-06(a)

The Plaintiffs are correct that no federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334 exists, meaning that the District Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction that is referred to this court under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) and the District Court’s general order of reference. Without this initial jurisdiction in the District Court, no referred jurisdiction to this court exists that can be withdrawn.

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

Allied Title Lending, LLC v. Taylor · filed 2019-10-22(a)

Within these jurisdictional limits, pursuant to 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 this district.” This District has utilized § 157(a) to confer jurisdiction on the Bankruptcy Court to the full extent permitted by law.

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

Lattea v. Vanderbilt Mortgage & Finance, Inc. · filed 2020-01-08(a)

Pursuant to these standards, this District’s Local Rule of Civil Procedure 83.13 relies on 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) to provide that “all cases under Title 11, and all proceedings arising under Title 11 or arising in or related to a case under Title 11, are referred to the Bankruptcy Court for disposition.” ... The Court accordingly REFERS this action to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of West Virginia for further proceedings and orders it REMOVED from the docket.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer bankruptcy matters to a bankruptcy court, but the referral provision does not affect subject matter jurisdiction.

Potter v. Newkirk · filed 2020-02-04(a)

While a district court is authorized to refer matters to a bankruptcy court, see 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), that provision is not jurisdictional.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer a proceeding over ownership of property claimed by a bankruptcy estate to its bankruptcy judges.

Marascalco v. Marascalco · filed 2020-04-24(a)

Because this Court agrees that the issue of ownership of the cabin is a core proceeding, which issue will be determined by Judge Woodard within the context of Carl’s bankruptcy proceedings, and because no opposition to the motion to transfer has been lodged,2 transfer will be ordered.

Section 157 permits a district court to retain proceedings when the bankruptcy court’s authority to hear all claims and defenses is uncertain.

Kerger v. United States · filed 2020-07-21(a)

Because there are questions concerning the Bankruptcy Court’s jurisdiction to hear the entirety of the claims and defenses presented, and because there is no question this Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate all the claims presented, the Court will retain both cases and will not refer to them to the Bankruptcy Court at this time, subject to revisiting the issue should discovery or legal argument warrant referral.

Section 157(a) allows a district court to refer motions for relief from the automatic stay to a bankruptcy court by standing order.

Nelson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2020-11-06(a)

Despite the Debtor’s assertion to the contrary, bankruptcy courts have authority to hear, determine, and enter final orders on motions for relief from stay. Such motions arise in a bankruptcy case and under the Bankruptcy Code and therefore fall within the jurisdiction given the district court in 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) and, by a standing order of reference, referred to the bankruptcy court by 28 U.S.C. § 157(a).

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer bankruptcy claims to a bankruptcy court in the same district.

Davis v. Citizens Bank, N.A. · filed 2020-12-09(a)

While 28 U.S.C. §157(a) allows a district court to refer such claims to a bankruptcy court in the same district, because Plaintiffs have a pending action in the bankruptcy court, this Court will not refer Plaintiffs’ claims to that court.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer a proceeding to bankruptcy court only if the proceeding falls within bankruptcy jurisdiction.

NVR, INC. v. MAJESTIC HILLS, L.L.C. · filed 2021-06-08(a)

Provided that a bankruptcy court has jurisdiction, district courts 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.”3 28 U.S.C. § 157(a). ... Further, the Court declines to refer this case to the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer bankruptcy claims to the bankruptcy judges for its district.

US BANK TRUST NA AS TRUSTEE FOR LSF11 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST v. VINCENT · filed 2021-07-26(a)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), the Court refers the claims alleging violation of the bankruptcy discharge injunction, 11 U.S.C. § 524, to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maine.

Section 157 authorizes district courts to refer bankruptcy cases and proceedings to bankruptcy judges; it does not itself grant bankruptcy jurisdiction.

Nu-Cast Step & Supply, Inc. · filed 2021-11-17(a)

Section 157 of title 28 then authorizes the federal district courts to “refer” those bankruptcy cases and civil proceedings to the bankruptcy judges for the district.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer an action related to a bankruptcy proceeding to the bankruptcy court under a standing order of reference.

Zarour v. U.S. Bank, N.A. · filed 2022-01-10(a)

Because Plaintiff may be able to seek such relief in Bankruptcy Court, the Court concludes that the amended complaint should be referred to the Bankruptcy Court under the general order of reference, as it is at minimally related to Plaintiff’s bankruptcy proceeding and concerns orders issued in that proceeding. ... The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed pursuant to this Court’s standing order of reference and 28 U.S.C. section 157(a) to refer this action to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York and close this action on the records of this Court.

Section 157(a) provides the basis for a district court to refer proceedings arising in or related to a bankruptcy case to the bankruptcy court.

Dennis Ray Johnson, II and Southern Marine Services Limited Liability Company · filed 2022-01-14(a)

Pursuant to these standards, this District’s Local Rule of Civil Procedure 83.13 relies on 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) to provide that “all cases under Title 11, and all proceedings arising under Title 11 or arising in or related to a case under Title 11, are referred to the Bankruptcy Court for disposition.” ... The Court accordingly REFERS this action to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of West Virginia for further proceedings and orders it REMOVED from the docket.

Section 157(a) permits referral to bankruptcy judges only of title 11 cases and proceedings arising under, arising in, or related to a title 11 case.

Healthcare Real Estate Partners, LLC. v. Summit Healthcare REIT, Inc. · filed 2022-02-04(a)

The fact that section 157(a), however, permits the district court to refer to the bankruptcy judges for the district only “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” – language that is exactly coextensive with the grant of the subject-matter jurisdiction under section 1334 and does not mention any supplemental jurisdiction – strongly suggests that section 1367’s supplemental jurisdiction does not apply to section 1334’s bankruptcy jurisdiction.

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

Zarour v. JP Morgan Chase Bank · filed 2022-02-07(a)

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed pursuant to this Court’s standing order of reference and 28 U.S.C. section 157(a) to refer this action to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York and close this action on the records of this Court.

Section 157 permits a district court to refer claims arising under, arising in, or related to a Title 11 case to the bankruptcy court.

Harlow v. Wells Fargo & Co · filed 2022-06-21(a)

The remaining counts fit comfortably within this framework. ... As such, these claims arise out of or are related to a case under Title 11. ... Accordingly, the court orders REFERRAL of Counts III, V, VI, VII, and VIII of Case No. 7:22cv267 to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Virginia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157 and General Rule 3 of the Local Rules for the Western District of Virginia.

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

Group Management Corp. · filed 2022-10-24(a)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), however, a district court may 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 the bankruptcy courts of that district. The Northern District of Georgia has referred all proceedings within its bankruptcy jurisdiction to the bankruptcy judges.

Section 157(a) permits district courts to refer bankruptcy proceedings arising under, arising in, or related to a Title 11 case to bankruptcy judges.

United States v. MIKHOV · filed 2022-11-21(a)

The Mikhovs' reliance on this Local rule is entirely misplaced. The case at bar is not a matter arising under Title 11, as we have previously made clear. Thus, it was not automatically referred to the Bankruptcy Court nor will it be.

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

Mauldin v. Oliver · filed 2022-12-16(a)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), district courts “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.” ... Since this Court already determined that the Mauldins’ claims in this action are related to their bankruptcy case, referral pursuant to § 157(a) and Local Rule 83.6 is appropriate.

Section 157(a) authorizes, but does not require, federal district courts to refer bankruptcy cases and related proceedings to bankruptcy courts.

McIntyre v. Fangman · filed 2022-12-30(a)

By virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), the federal district courts are authorized, but not required, to refer to the bankruptcy courts cases under Title 11, and proceedings arising under Title 11, or arising in or related to cases under Title 11.

Section 157 permits district courts to refer bankruptcy matters to bankruptcy courts and distinguishes core proceedings, which bankruptcy judges may finally decide, from non-core proceedings.

Curtis v. Awbrey · filed 2023-01-03(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(E), (b)(2)(F), (b)(2)(O), and (c)(1)

Section 157 allows a district court to “refer” all bankruptcy and related cases to the bankruptcy court, wherein the latter court will appropriately preside over the matter. This Court determines that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (E), (F), and (O) this proceeding contains core matters, as it primarily involves proceedings concerning the administration of this estate, recovery of estate property, and recovery preferential transfers. ... While bankruptcy judges can issue final orders and judgments for core proceedings, absent consent, they can only issue reports and recommendations on non-core matters.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) classifies certain bankruptcy matters as core proceedings that a bankruptcy court may hear and finally decide.

Christopher Charles Marsh and Nicole Diane Marsh - BELOW MED · filed 2023-01-17(b)(2)(A), (O)

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

Section 157(a) authorizes, but does not require, district courts to refer bankruptcy cases and related proceedings to bankruptcy courts.

McIntyre v. Active Energies Solar, LLC · filed 2022-12-30(a)

By virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), the federal district courts are authorized, but not required, to refer to the bankruptcy courts cases under Title 11, and proceedings arising under Title 11, or arising in or related to cases under Title 11.

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

Robin Song LLC v. Ahmed · filed 2023-02-20(a)

The court may, however, 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 the bankruptcy judges for the district.” Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 157(a)); see also Loc. R. 402. ... Accordingly, in light of the facts specific to this case, the Court will refer the matter to the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer to a bankruptcy court only matters within the district court’s bankruptcy jurisdiction under section 1334.

Burns v. Thuney · filed 2023-03-02(a)

Because 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) permits the district court to refer to the bankruptcy court only matters over which the district court has bankruptcy jurisdiction under 1334, and there is no other source of a bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction, the bankruptcy court lacks jurisdiction to determine whether the Thuneys’ notice of removal filed in the bankruptcy court constitutes a notice of removal filed in the district court under 1441(a).

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

SE Property Holdings, LLC v. Dyken · filed 2023-06-14(a)

Moreover, pursuant to 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." ... Accordingly, Count Seven is REFERRED to the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157(a) allows a district court to refer bankruptcy and related cases to the bankruptcy court.

Mitchell · filed 2023-07-26(a)

Section 157 allows a district court to “refer” all bankruptcy and related cases to the bankruptcy court, wherein the latter court will appropriately preside over the matter.

Section 157 permits district courts to refer bankruptcy and related cases to bankruptcy courts and treats proceedings involving estate administration and fraudulent or preferential transfer recovery as core matters.

Engelhart, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Le Nguyen · filed 2023-07-13(a), (b)(2)(A), (F), (H), and (O)

Section 157 allows a district court to “refer” all bankruptcy and related cases to the bankruptcy court, wherein the latter court will appropriately preside over the matter. This Court determines that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (F), (H) and (O) this proceeding contains core matters, as it primarily involves proceedings concerning the administration of this estate and recovery of alleged fraudulent and preferential transfers.

Section 157(a) permits referral of bankruptcy proceedings to bankruptcy judges, and section 157(b)(2)(J) classifies discharge determinations as core proceedings.

Lashinsky, United States Trustee v. Medina · filed 2023-07-26(a), (b)(2)(J)

Reference to the Court of this adversary proceeding is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a). The decision whether to grant or deny a discharge is a “core” proceeding as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(J).

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer bankruptcy cases to bankruptcy judges, but referral is neither mandatory nor automatic.

Centrust Savings Bank v. Love · filed 1991-06-18(a)

Section 157(a) provides: “Each district court may provide that any or all cases under title 11 ... shall be referred to the bankruptcy judges for the district.” This is the equivalent of the standing order presently used in this district to refer cases from the district court to the bankruptcy court. By its very language, the statute is neither mandatory nor automatic.

Section 157(a) permits referral of a debtor’s damages action to the bankruptcy court when a recovery could increase the bankruptcy estate.

Delcon Const. Corp. v. Board of Educ. of City of Yonkers, New York · filed 2003-09-19(a)

It is conceivable that this action could have an effect on Deleon’s bankruptcy estate for the simple reason that if Deleon were to prevail and win a money judgment, the estate would have substantially more assets at its disposal. Therefore, it is plain that this action is related to the bankruptcy ease currently pending before Judge Hardin. The plaintiffs action is therefore referred to the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(a) requires a district court referral before a bankruptcy court may hear a case pending in district court.

In re: Malcolm Curtis and Judith Curtis · filed 2017-08-18(a)

The proper procedure for transferring a case from a federal district court to bankruptcy court is to request a referral by the district court.

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

Wilson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA · filed 2023-10-06(a)

District courts are permitted to require “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); see Dunmore v. United States, 358 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 2004) (bankruptcy courts exercise derivative jurisdiction). ... Referral under LCR 87(a) is appropriate because this action is “related to” Mr. Wilson’s pending bankruptcy proceedings before Judge Barreca.

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

Dan-Gulf Shipping, Inc. v. Jagtiani · filed 2023-11-30(a)

Because the Eastern District of Louisiana’s General Order of Reference provides for automatic referral of proceedings to the same extent that § 1334 confers jurisdiction, this Court refers the instant case to the bankruptcy judge.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer bankruptcy-related proceedings to a bankruptcy judge through a general order of reference.

In Re: Deepak Jagtiani and Lata D. Jagtiani · filed 2023-11-30(a)

Having established subject matter jurisdiction, “[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 judge for the district.”7 ... The Eastern District of Louisiana’s General Order of Reference provides for automatic referral of proceedings to the same extent that § 1334 confers jurisdiction, and as such, this Court refers the instant case to the Bankruptcy Judge.

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

Kaye v. Barry S. Franklin & Associates, P.A. · filed 2024-01-26(a)

The Court also finds that referral to the Bankruptcy Court is appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), under which the Court may refer all proceedings “related to a case under title 11” to the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157 permits district courts to refer bankruptcy proceedings to bankruptcy courts and withdraw the reference for cause.

Byrnes v. Byrnes · filed 2024-01-16(a), (d)

District courts are authorized to refer such proceedings to bankruptcy court, which is a practice of this District. 28 U.S.C. § 157(a). A reference may be withdrawn where a defendant can show cause. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). ... The order of reference remained in effect at the time Judge Thuma held his pretrial conference. Judge Riggs expressly denied Mr. Byrnes’s motion to stay the pre-trial conference. Judge Thuma had jurisdiction to proceed with the pretrial conference. He likewise had jurisdiction to enter the order of dismissal and the attorney’s fees sanction.

Section 157(a) permits district courts to refer bankruptcy cases to bankruptcy courts, and § 157(b)(1) authorizes bankruptcy judges to hear and determine core proceedings.

Milton Tyrone Bush and Malissia Katernia Bush · filed 2024-02-14(a), (b)(1)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) the District Court for the Northern District of Alabama has referred all cases under the Code to the bankruptcy courts in the district, and by virtue of that referral, 28 U.S.C. § 1334 (e)(1) gives this bankruptcy court exclusive jurisdiction “of all the property, wherever located, of the debtor as of the commencement of such case, and property of the estate.” ... Thus, ... the determination of the Debtors’ (now the estate’s) interest and rights in the Property, and a sale for division if the estate owns an undivided interest, are core proceedings under § 157(b)(1) because they arise under Code §§ 541 and 363(h) and fall within this court’s exclusive jurisdiction over estate property determinations.

Section 157 allows a district court to decline a referral to bankruptcy court when judicial efficiency and avoiding delay favor keeping the case.

Nelson v. St. Catherine University · filed 2024-05-21

The Court finds that concerns for judicial efficiency and reduction of delay weigh in favor of retaining jurisdiction, and accordingly declines to refer the matter to the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer bankruptcy proceedings to bankruptcy judges; under this district’s referral rule, a claim for violation of the automatic stay belongs in bankruptcy court.

Rogers v. Anong, LLC · filed 2024-07-22(a)

To this end, district courts may refer cases arising under title 11 to the district’s bankruptcy judges. 28 U.S.C. § 157(a). Under this Court’s local rules, “[a]ll bankruptcy cases and proceedings . . . are referred to the bankruptcy judges and shall be assigned among them according to orders made by them.” Bankr. D. Minn. R. 1070–1. The bankruptcy court is the proper court for the section 362(k) claim asserted in this case.

Section 157(a) authorizes district courts to refer bankruptcy cases and related proceedings to bankruptcy judges in their district.

Anthony · filed 2024-08-13(a)

Congress has authorized district courts to refer “any or all” bankruptcy related proceedings to bankruptcy judges for their district. 28 U.S.C. § 157(a).

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer automatic stay and discharge injunction claims to the bankruptcy court.

Allen v. Wings Financial Credit Union · filed 2025-01-13(a)

However, the Bankruptcy Code allows a Bankruptcy Court to “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 [to it],” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), and it allows each district court to refer any or all such matters to the bankruptcy judges for the district. 28 U.S.C. § 157(a). ... For the above reasons, the Court concludes that Allen’s automatic stay and discharge injunction claims are properly referred to the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer a request for relief from a bankruptcy stay to the bankruptcy court.

LUSTIG v. DANIEL MARKUS, INC. · filed 2025-01-14(a)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) and District of New Jersey Standing Order of Reference 12-1, Plaintiff's request for relief from the administrative stay is hereby REFERRED to the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(a) gives the district court authority to refer a pending lawsuit related to a bankruptcy case to the bankruptcy court, in whole or in part.

Daniel M. Risis · filed 2025-03-27(a)

Only the District Court has the authority to “refer” the Debtor’s pending District Court lawsuit to the Bankruptcy Court, in full or in part, by entering an order transferring jurisdiction because the matters in controversy relate to the Debtor’s bankruptcy case.

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

Thomas v. The Administrative Office of the United States Courts · filed 2025-04-25(a)

But § 157(a) allows district courts to refer bankruptcy cases to the bankruptcy court, and this district has referred all bankruptcy cases to its bankruptcy court.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer proceedings arising in a Title 11 case to the bankruptcy court.

Burgess · filed 2025-10-15(a)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), district courts may refer Title 11 matters to the bankruptcy courts. ... Because Plaintiff’s claims arise in Title 11, the Court concludes referral of the pending motions to the Bankruptcy Court is appropriate.

Section 157(a) permits district courts to refer bankruptcy cases and proceedings arising under, arising in, or related to a Title 11 case to bankruptcy courts.

Farmers and Merchants Bank v. D & G Investments MS · filed 2026-02-09(a)

Indeed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), the United States District Courts for the Northern and Southern Districts of Mississippi have implemented a Uniform Local Rule referring all cases and proceedings arising under or arising in or related to a case under Title 11 to this District’s Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer a bankruptcy-related proceeding to a bankruptcy judge, but the court may decline referral when it would not serve the purpose of channeling the dispute to the court best positioned to resolve it.

Hazan · filed 2026-02-23(a)

Although this action is “related to” In re Hazan and the Adversary Proceeding, the Court declines to transfer or refer it to the Bankruptcy Court. The referral mechanism under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) and Local Rule 87.2 exists to channel bankruptcy-related disputes to the court best positioned to resolve them.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer a proceeding related to a bankruptcy case to the bankruptcy court, but does not require referral.

Ward v. INVISTA S.A.R.L., LLC · filed 2008-03-10(a)

This Court did not refer this matter to the Bankruptcy Court in the Western District to be heard as a proceeding related to IFC’s bankruptcy, although it could have and recently was moved by Plaintiff to so order. ... The Court also denies the Motion of Plaintiff for referral of this matter to the Bankruptcy Court in the Western District.

A standing referral under § 157(a) permits a notice of removal to be filed directly with the bankruptcy clerk for the district.

Bank of America, N.A. v. Brennan Title Co. (In Re Donoho) · filed 2009-01-29(a)

That is because in each instance the reference has already been accomplished by the standing order of reference. ... Accordingly, the court concludes that the notice of removal was properly filed with the bankruptcy clerk for this district.

Section 157 provides a procedure for referring bankruptcy matters to a bankruptcy court or withdrawing that reference.

Meeks v. Healthcorp of Tennessee, Inc. (In Re Southern Health Care of Arkansas, Inc.) · filed 2004-09-09

Meeks suggestion in his brief that the Federal District Court lacked jurisdiction over unique bankruptcy code related causes of action ... ignores the fact that he filed the RICO Suit post-petition, when all remedies were available to him, and a suitable vehicle exists under 28 U.S.C. § 157 to make or withdraw the reference as appropriate and based on the initially selected forum.

Section 157(a) permits district courts to refer proceedings arising in or related to a Title 11 case to a bankruptcy judge.

Snow Covered Capital, LLC v. Weidner · filed 2021-03-18(a)

28 U.S.C. § 157(a) permits district courts to refer “any or all proceedings” arising in or related to a case under Title 11 to a bankruptcy judge.

Section 157 permits bankruptcy courts to construe their own prior orders in proceedings arising under title 11.

In Re Franklin · filed 1986-10-10

Congress' grants of jurisdiction under sections 1334 and 157 conferred upon bankruptcy courts that jurisdiction needed to implement effectively its function of administering the Bankruptcy Code. See First State Bank & Trust Co. v. Sand Springs State Bank, 528 F.2d 350, 353 (10th Cir.1976). Simply put, bankruptcy courts must retain jurisdiction to construe their own orders if they are to be capable of monitoring whether those orders are ultimately executed in the intended manner.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to construe its own orders after the underlying bankruptcy case is dismissed, without reopening the case.

Beneficial Trust Deeds v. Franklin · filed 1986-10-10

Congress' grants of jurisdiction under sections 1334 and 157 conferred upon bankruptcy courts that jurisdiction needed to implement effectively its function of administering the Bankruptcy Code. ... Simply put, bankruptcy courts must retain jurisdiction to construe their own orders if they are to be capable of monitoring whether those orders are ultimately executed in the intended manner.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to interpret its prior orders and determine whether a party complied with them.

Sierra Summit, Inc. v. California State Board of Equalization (In re China Peak Resort) · filed 1987-07-13

Inherent in - the court’s jurisdiction, as defined by 28 U.S.C. Section 157, is the ability to determine the application of its previous orders. Therefore, based upon the request for review of its previous order, jurisdiction was proper for the limited purpose of determining compliance by the Board with the terms of the previous injunction.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to interpret its prior order appointing Chapter 11 counsel, even after the bankruptcy petition is dismissed.

In Re: Bay Voltex Corporation · filed 2010-03-24

As a threshold matter, the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157 to interpret its prior order appointing Warner as Chapter 11 counsel.

Section 157 gives a bankruptcy court jurisdiction to interpret its prior order appointing Chapter 11 counsel.

Warner v. Pease · filed 2010-03-24

As a threshold matter, the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157 to interpret its prior order appointing Warner as Chapter 11 counsel.

Under § 157, interpreting or enforcing an order that resolved a core proceeding is also a core proceeding.

Rodriguez v. Smith · filed 2021-10-05(b)(2)(A), (O)

First, mandatory abstention is improper because when an order resolves a core proceeding, the interpretation and enforcement of that order is also a core proceeding.

A Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial supplies cause to withdraw a bankruptcy reference, making the usual discretionary factors inconsequential.

Reyes-Colon · filed 2026-02-24(d)

Nevertheless, such factors are inconsequential when Plaintiff has a Seventh Amendment right to a trial by jury.

Section 157(e) permits a bankruptcy judge to conduct a jury trial only with the parties’ express consent and the district court’s special designation.

Abbey v. Modern Africa One, LLC · filed 2004-02-18(e)

Further complicating the matter of transfer is the fact that plaintiffs have requested a jury trial in this case, and under 28 U.S.C. § 157(e) and F.R. Bahkr.P. 9015, a bankruptcy judge may conduct a jury trial only if the parties expressly consent and if the district court has specially designated the bankruptcy judge to conduct the jury trial.

Classification as a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2) does not by itself establish a right to a jury trial.

Lohmeier v. Himmelspach (In Re Lohmeier) · filed 2004-01-05(b)(2)

Contrary to Plaintiffs view, coreness is not fully determinative of the right to a jury trial.

Classification as a core proceeding under § 157 does not itself waive a party’s right to a jury trial.

Sentry Operating Co. v. Billings (In Re Sentry Operating Co. of Texas, Inc.) · filed 2002-02-01(b)(2)

The Supreme Court has made it clear that a party does not lose its constitutional right to jury trial merely because 28 USC § 157 classifies the matter as a core matter. Granfinanciera clearly involved a core matter (28 USC § 157(b)(2)(H), a proceeding to recover fraudulent transfers) but the defendant had a right to a jury trial. Therefore, the Defendant’s admission that the matter is a core matter does not waive the jury trial right.

Section 157(e) does not authorize a bankruptcy judge to conduct a jury trial in a proceeding arising from a bankruptcy case commenced before the 1994 Act’s enactment.

Hedback v. American Family Mutual Insurance (In Re Mathews) · filed 1996-03-29(e)

Section 112 of the Act, which enacted 28 U.S.C. § 157(e), is not among the enumerated sections that § 702(b)(2) excepts from the general effective date. ... There is no statutory authority for a bankruptcy judge to preside over a jury trial in any contested matter or adversary proceeding arising out of the Debtor’s case, including this one.

Section 157(e)’s jury trial provision does not apply when the bankruptcy petition was filed before the 1994 amendment’s effective date, even if the adversary proceeding was filed later.

Stalford v. Blue MacK Transport, Inc. (In Re Lands End Leasing, Inc.) · filed 1996-03-27(e)

A threshold inquiry regarding this court’s authority to conduct the jury trial on Count IV concerns the applicability of § 157(e) of the Bankruptcy Amendments of 1994 which became effective as of October 22, 1994. ... Accordingly, the court concludes that the 1994 Amendments are inapplicable to this proceeding where the debtor filed its petition for relief on October 20, 1993, one year before the Amendments’ effective date.

Section 157(c) makes a jury trial in a noncore proceeding impractical in bankruptcy court when the parties have not consented to a final judgment by the bankruptcy judge.

Smith-Douglass, Inc. v. Smith (In Re Smith-Douglass, Inc.) · filed 1984-10-23(c)

This adversary proceeding is a noncore proceeding and the defendant has not consented to the entry of final judgments by the bankruptcy court under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2). Consequently, this adversary proceeding can not be effectively tried by a jury in this bankruptcy court.

Section 157’s classification of a proceeding as core does not eliminate a party’s right to a jury trial; the court must determine whether the action is legal or equitable.

Zimmerman v. Cavanagh (In Re Kenval Marketing Corp.) · filed 1986-09-19(b)

I cannot accept this analysis because I am persuaded that the classification of a matter as a core proceeding does not eliminate a litigant’s constitutional right to a jury trial. Rather, once a proceeding is classified as a core proceeding, the court is still required to determine whether the action is one at law or lies in equity in deciding the right to a jury trial.

A counterclaim proceeding maintained under § 157(b)(2)(C) carries no right to a jury trial.

Dechert Price & Rhoads v. Direct Satellite Communications, Inc. (In Re Direct Satellite Communications, Inc.) · filed 1988-10-03(b)(2)(C)

We simply believe that no right of jury trial arises in any proceeding which, like the matter in issue here, is expressly maintained pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(C).

Section 157(b)(2)(H)’s designation of fraudulent conveyance actions as core proceedings does not eliminate the Seventh Amendment jury-trial right of a defendant who has not filed a claim against the bankruptcy estate.

Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg · filed 1989-06-23(b)(2)(H)

The question presented is whether a person who has not submitted a claim against a bankruptcy estate has a right to a jury trial when sued by the trustee in bankruptcy to recover an allegedly fraudulent monetary transfer. We hold that the Seventh Amendment entitles such a person to a trial by jury, notwithstanding Congress’ designation of fraudulent conveyance actions as “core proceedings” in 28 U. S. C. § 157(b)(2)(H) (1982 ed., Supp. V).

Section 157(b)(5)’s requirement that certain actions be tried in district court does not imply that bankruptcy judges may conduct jury trials in other actions.

Gumport v. Growth Financial Corp. (In Re Transcon Lines) · filed 1990-12-11(b)(5)

The legislative history simply does not support the position that because § 157(b)(5) specifies that certain causes of action must be tried in a district court, all other causes of action may be tried before a bankruptcy court.

Section 157(e) permits a bankruptcy judge to conduct a jury trial only if the district court specially designates the judge and all parties expressly consent.

Sacred Heart Hospital v. Independence Blue Cross (In Re Sacred Heart Hospital) · filed 1995-04-19(e)

Upon the enactment of 28 U.S.C. § 157(e), effective October 22, 1994, it has been established that bankruptcy judges can conduct jury trials, at least in core proceedings, but only “if specially designated to exercise such jurisdiction by the district court and with the express consent of all the parties.” Neither this bankruptcy judge nor any other judge in this district has been so specially designated and, even if there were such a designation, it is uncertain whether IBC would consent to our conducting the necessary jury trial.

Section 157’s jury trial amendment applies to bankruptcy cases filed on or after October 22, 1994.

Estate of Samson Ex Rel. Murphy v. Ward (In Re Ward) · filed 1995-04-28(e)

It should be noted that 28 U.S.C. § 157 was amended effective October 22, 1994 to provide that if the right to a jury trial applies, the bankruptcy court may now conduct the jury trial if the bankruptcy judge is specially designated by the District Court and all parties to the proceeding have expressly consented. This amendment applies to bankruptcy cases filed on or after October 22, 1994, which the within case was not.

Section 157(e) permits a bankruptcy judge to conduct a jury trial only when specially designated by the district court and all parties expressly consent.

In Re Alexander J. Vigh. Alexander J. Vigh, Debtor-Appellant v. Robert Yates, Ellen Yates, and Therese Vigh · filed 1996-05-08(e)

While the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994 authorizes bankruptcy judges to conduct jury trials, such jurisdiction is granted only if "specially designated" by the district court and "with the express consent of all the parties," 28 U.S.C. § 157(e), conditions that were not met in this case.

Section 157(e) requires all parties to consent before a bankruptcy court can conduct a jury trial.

Joshua Hill, Inc. v. Whitemarsh Township Authority (In Re Joshua Hill, Inc.) · filed 1996-07-11(e)

As a result, this court cannot conduct a jury trial on the remaining claims unless all of the parties consent thereto.

Section 157(e) permits a bankruptcy court to conduct a jury trial only with all parties’ consent and special designation by the district court.

Farmers Bank & Capital Trust Co. v. Travel Professionals International of Scott County, Inc. (In re Travel Professionals · filed 1997-10-16(e)

As all parties are aware, the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 157(e) provide that the bankruptcy court may conduct a jury trial with consent of all parties and upon being specially designated to exercise such jurisdiction by the district court. At the present time, both of the qualifications to conduct a jury trial, consent and special designation, are absent in this proceeding and, clearly, this Court cannot presently conduct a jury trial if movants are entitled to one.

Section 157(e) permits a bankruptcy court to conduct a jury trial only with district court approval and the consent of all parties.

Carter v. Schott (In Re Carter Paper Co.) · filed 1998-04-16(e)

A bankruptcy court can preside over a jury trial only with the approval of the district court and the consent of all parties.

Section 157(e) requires district court designation before a bankruptcy judge may conduct a jury trial.

M. Sobel, Inc. v. Weinstein (In Re Weinstein) · filed 1999-08-17(e)

Since this Court lacks the § 157(e) designation to properly conduct a jury trial, the judges appointed under Article III of the United States Constitution constitute the only judicial officers of the Bankruptcy Court under 18 U.S.C. § 1331 et seq. that have the authority to preside over jury trials.

Section 157(e) permits a specially designated bankruptcy judge to conduct a jury trial only with the express consent of all parties.

Naturally Beautiful Nails, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (In Re Naturally Beautiful Nails, Inc.) · filed 2000-08-23(e)

While there is no doubt that the District Court of the Middle District of Florida did enter an Order on December 1, 1994, specially designating the Bankruptcy Judges of this District to conduct jury trials pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(e), the Order requires a consent by all parties. Wal-Mart did not consent to a trial by jury, which is one of the reasons the Plaintiff is not entitled to a jury trial.

Section 157(e) permits a bankruptcy court to conduct a jury trial only when the party has a jury-trial right, the district court has authorized the bankruptcy court to conduct trials, and all parties expressly consent.

Hays v. Equitex, Inc. (In Re RDM Sports Group, Inc.) · filed 2001-04-02(e)

28 U.S.C. § 157(e) authorizes a bankruptcy court to conduct a jury trial if three conditions are satisfied: (1) a party must have a right to a jury trial; (2) the bankruptcy court must be authorized to conduct trials by the district court; and (3) all of the parties to the litigation must expressly consent.

Section 157(e) requires the parties’ voluntary consent for a bankruptcy court to conduct a jury trial; otherwise, the jury issues must be referred to the district court.

Spence v. Southern Mortgage Co. (In Re Spence) · filed 2001-05-18(e)

As to the jury issues, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(e), the parties are required to voluntarily consent to a jury trial being conducted by the bankruptcy court. Otherwise, the jury issues must be referred to the United States District Court for trial.

Section 157(e) permits a bankruptcy court to conduct a jury trial only if both parties expressly consent and the district court grants a special designation of jurisdiction.

Renaissance Cosmetics, Inc. v. Development Specialists Inc. · filed 2002-01-14(e)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(e), a bankruptcy court may only conduct a jury trial if both parties expressly consent and a special designation of jurisdiction is granted by the district court.

Section 157(e) permits a bankruptcy judge to conduct a jury trial only when the district court designates that authority and all parties expressly consent.

Roberds, Inc. v. Palliser Furniture · filed 2003-01-03(e)

If the right to a jury trial applies in a proceeding that may be heard by the bankruptcy judge, the trial may be held in the bankruptcy court, provided that the district court has specially designated that the bankruptcy court could exercise such jurisdiction and that all of the parties have expressly consented. Id. § 157(e). Absent such designation by the district court or the consent of the parties, bankruptcy courts within the Sixth Circuit do not have the authority to conduct jury trials. Rafoth v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 954 F.2d 1169, 1172-73 (6th Cir.1992)(noting split among the courts of appeals as to whether bankruptcy courts may conduct jury trials). ... In the present proceeding, Palliser Furniture has expressly stated that it will not consent to trial in the Bankruptcy Court. ... Therefore, assuming arguendo that Defendant has a right to a jury trial, that trial must be held in this Court.

Section 157(e) requires every party’s express consent for a bankruptcy judge to conduct a jury trial, including in a core proceeding.

Lars, Inc. v. Taber Partners (In Re Lars, Inc.) · filed 2003-02-25(e)

The parties disagree over the nature of the proceeding, but even if this were a core matter, the Bankruptcy Court could not hold a jury trial absent the parties’ express consent. Indeed, section 157(e) does not exempt core proceedings from this requirement.

Section 157(e) permits a specially designated bankruptcy judge to conduct a jury trial when the parties expressly consent.

Quarles v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. (In Re Quarles) · filed 2003-05-28(e)

Pursuant to General Order 44 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, the bankruptcy judges in this district are specially designated to conduct jury trials with the express consent of all parties. Accordingly, this Court need only determine whether the Plaintiff has a right to a jury trial in this case, and if so, whether all parties have consented to the bankruptcy court’s holding the jury trial.

Section 157(e) permits a specially designated bankruptcy judge to conduct a jury trial with all parties’ express consent only when a right to a jury trial applies to the proceeding.

Goodale v. Duffy (In Re Duffy) · filed 2004-09-21(e)

The broad question “May jury trials may be held in bankruptcy courts?” is answered by 28 U.S.C. § 157(e) which states: If the right to a jury trial applies in a proceeding that may be heard under this section by a bankruptcy judge, the bankruptcy judge may conduct the jury trial if specially designated to exercise such jurisdiction by the district court and with the express consent of all the parties. ... However, things are not always as clear as they seem, and although it requires an examination of some really ancient history, the narrow question here- — whether the right to a jury trial extends to Section 523 proceedings, is answered in the negative.

Section 157(e) requires a party’s consent and district court designation before a bankruptcy judge may conduct a jury trial.

McCord v. Papantoniou · filed 2004-10-22(e)

Accordingly, because defendant does not consent to a jury trial in the bankruptcy court and the district court has not designated that bankruptcy courts will have such jurisdiction, defendant will not have a jury trial in bankruptcy court.

Section 157(e) requires every party’s express consent for a jury trial before a bankruptcy judge; when a defendant claims a jury trial and withholds consent, the district court may withdraw the reference.

Weiss Ex Rel. Fibercore, Inc. v. OFS FITEL, LLC · filed 2007-02-09(e)

Jury trial before a bankruptcy court judge can only occur “with the express consent of all the parties.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(e). Where a defendant in an adversary proceeding claims a jury trial and does not consent to having that trial before a bankruptcy court judge, the preferred course appears to be to withdraw the reference and permit the jury trial to go forward before the district court judge.

Section 157(e) requires all parties’ consent for a bankruptcy judge to conduct a jury trial.

Principal Life Insurance v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (In Re Brook Mays Music Co.) · filed 2007-03-08(e)

This court cannot preside over the jury trial without the consent of all parties. 28 U.S.C. § 157(e).

Section 157(e) permits a bankruptcy judge to conduct a jury trial only when the district court authorizes it and the parties consent.

Hickman v. Hana (In Re Hickman) · filed 2008-03-20(e)

Whether the bankruptcy court or the district court conducts the trial depends upon whether the district court has authorized the bankruptcy judges of the district to conduct jury trials and whether the parties have consented. 28 U.S.C. § 157(e); Fed. R. Bankr.P. 9015.

Section 157(e) allows a bankruptcy judge to conduct a jury trial only when the right applies, the district court specially designates the judge, and all parties expressly consent.

Altman v. Alternative Debt Portfolios, L.P. (In Re EZ Pay Services, Inc.) · filed 2008-04-15(e)

The section does not create any right to a jury trial. It “simply authorizes a bankruptcy judge to conduct a jury trial ‘[i]f the right to a jury trial applies,’ and the other conditions of the statute are met.... In other words, if Appellants otherwise have a right to a jury trial, such a trial may be held before the bankruptcy court if this Court designates it to conduct the trial and the parties give express consent.”

Section 157(e) requires the parties’ express consent for a bankruptcy court to conduct a jury trial.

Crum v. Tomlinson (In Re Hettick) · filed 2009-02-25(e)

Neither PHS and EMC expressly consent to this Bankruptcy Court conducting a jury trial of Counts One, Two, Three, Four, and Five, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 157(e).

Section 157(e) permits a bankruptcy court to conduct a jury trial when the parties consent and the district court specially delegates that authority.

Kaiser Group Holdings, Inc. v. Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP (In Re Kaiser Group International, Inc.) · filed 2009-11-09(e)

A bankruptcy court can hear a jury trial when the parties consent and the bankruptcy court is specially delegated the authority to do so from the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 157(e). Here, Plaintiffs foreclose such a possibility by stating they would not consent to a jury trial before a bankruptcy court.

Section 157(e) limits a bankruptcy court’s ability to try a core fraudulent transfer proceeding when the defendants request a jury.

Spicer v. Laguna Madre Oil & Gas II, LLC (In Re Texas Wyoming Drilling, Inc.) · filed 2010-01-20(e)

Though the court's core jurisdiction extends to the fraudulent transfer claims made in the TWD Adversary, the TWD Defendants have requested a jury, and at this time this court therefore lacks ability to try the TWD Adversary. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(e).

Section 157(e) permits a bankruptcy court to hold a jury trial only if the district court has designated it to do so and all parties expressly consent.

Lester v. TitleMax of South Carolina, Inc. (In Re TitleMax HoldIngs, LLC) · filed 2010-05-27(e)

Should the parties fail to consummate the settlement, Plaintiffs arguably have a right to a jury trial and have demanded one, a remedy which can only be afforded in this Court “if specially designated to exercise such jurisdiction by the district court and with the express consent of all the parties.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(e). There has been no such designation by the United States District Court to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Georgia.

Section 157(e) permits a bankruptcy judge to conduct a jury trial with all parties’ express consent; without consent, the judge may retain the proceeding until a trial is necessary.

Kelley v. Hofer (In Re Petters Co.) · filed 2010-12-20(e)

In this district, a presiding bankruptcy judge has authority to conduct a jury trial, 28 U.S.C. § 157(e) and Loe. R. Bankr.P. (D. Minn.) 1070-1, and may do so “with the express consent of all of the parties,” 28 U.S.C. § 157(e). ... In the case of a proceeding where a party is entitled to a jury trial and will not consent to a bankruptcy judge conducting the trial, the bankruptcy judge will retain authority over the proceeding until — at the earliest — it is established that a trial ,is necessary — i.e., all possibility of resolution via summary adjudication under Rule 56 or otherwise has been exhausted.

Section 157(e) permits a bankruptcy court to conduct a jury trial in a core proceeding only when the district court specially designates it and all parties expressly consent.

In Re Lee · filed 2012-04-18(e)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(e), a bankruptcy court may conduct a jury trial in a core proceeding “only if ‘specially designated’ by the district court and “with the express consent of all the parties.’ ” Vigh v. Yates (In re Vigh), 85 F.3d 630 (6th Cir.1996) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 157(e) (emphasis added)).

Section 157(e) requires the express consent of all parties for a bankruptcy court to conduct a jury trial.

Nickless v. DiStefano (In re Basile) · filed 2012-06-04(e)

This latter request is easily disposed of because, although the bankruptcy court in this district may conduct jury trials, it may not do so without the express consent of all the parties.

Section 157(e) requires every party’s express consent before a bankruptcy judge may conduct a jury trial.

Hough v. Margulies (In re Margulies) · filed 2012-08-13(e)

This Court cannot conduct a jury trial unless all parties expressly consent,... and USAA’s position implies that it will not consent.

Section 157(e) allows a bankruptcy court to conduct a jury trial with district court authorization and the parties’ consent.

Transcontinental Refrigerated Lines, Inc. ex rel. Young v. New Prime, Inc. (In re Transcontinental Refrigerated Lines, I · filed 2013-06-10(e)

It was in response to Granfinanciera that Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 157(e) authorizing the bankruptcy court to conduct jury trials with the authorization of the district court and the consent of the parties.

Section 157(e) allows a bankruptcy court to conduct a jury trial only with every party’s express consent.

Liberty Bank & Trust Co. v. Danley (In re Danley) · filed 2016-07-11(e)

The Danleys have not completely waived their right to an Article III adjudicator, however, because they timely demanded a jury trial on their counterclaims and did not expressly consent to having it conducted by this Court. Bankruptcy courts can conduct jury trials only “with the express consent of all the parties.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(e).

Section 157(e) permits a bankruptcy court to conduct a jury trial if the district court designates it to do so and the parties consent.

Newberry v. City of San Bernardino (In re City of San Bernardino) · filed 2016-09-19(e)

While the bankruptcy court is not constitutionally empowered to conduct a jury trial, it can do so if specifically designated to do so by the district court and with the consent of the parties.

Section 157(e) permits a bankruptcy judge to conduct a jury trial only with the express consent of all parties.

Bakst v. Bank Leumi, USA (In re D.I.T., Inc.) · filed 2017-10-03(e)

The parties have not consented to this Court conducting a jury trial. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(e).

Section 157(e) bars a bankruptcy judge from conducting a jury trial without all parties’ consent.

Stephenson v. Thrive National Corp · filed 2019-08-12(e)

Nonetheless, the right to a jury trial exists, which is something a bankruptcy court cannot conduct without the consent of all the parties.

Section 157(e) prevents a bankruptcy judge from conducting a jury trial without the parties’ express consent.

Windstream Holdings, Inc. v. Charter Communications, Inc. · filed 2020-03-17(e)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(e), therefore, this Court cannot try the remaining issues if the right to a jury trial applies.

Section 157(e) requires specific district court authorization before a bankruptcy judge may conduct a jury trial.

Barrett, Trustee v. Nancy Ann Rogers, Substitute Trustee · filed 2020-07-08(e)

The Standing Order of Reference is silent as to whether this Court could conduct a jury trial,and the District Court has not specifically authorized this Court to conduct a jury trial in this Adversary Proceeding. Therefore, this Court does not have the authority to conduct a jury trial in this Adversary Proceeding.

Section 157(e) allows a bankruptcy court to conduct a jury trial only when district judges authorize the practice and the parties consent.

Harris, Jr. v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2021-11-05(e)

Bankruptcy courts can conduct jury trials only when the district judges authorize the practice and the parties to the case consent. 28 U.S.C. § 157(e). The district judges in this district have not provided the required authorization, and it is unknown whether the parties to this adversary proceeding would provide the requisite consent. Therefore, the jury trial must take place in district court.

Section 157(e) permits a bankruptcy court to conduct a jury trial only with district court authorization and the parties’ consent.

Yanagi v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. · filed 2021-11-05(e)

Bankruptcy courts can conduct jury trials only when the district judges authorize the practice and the parties to the case consent. 28 U.S.C. § 157(e). The district judges in this district have not provided the required authorization, and it is unknown whether the parties to this adversary proceeding would provide the requisite consent. Therefore, the jury trial must take place in district court.

Section 157(e) permits a bankruptcy court to conduct a jury trial only when district judges authorize the practice and the parties consent.

Simon v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2021-11-17(e)

Bankruptcy courts can conduct jury trials only when the district judges authorize the practice and the parties to the case consent.

Section 157(e) requires the parties’ consent for a bankruptcy judge to conduct a jury trial.

Paul J. Robben · filed 2022-03-17(e)

Even if liability, damages, and dischargeability were at issue in the Dischargeability Complaint, absent the parties’ consent, which has not been given,9 this Court could not conduct a ... jury trial, as demanded by the Bartlett Parties in the Johnson County Petition on the issues of liability and the amount of damages.

Section 157(e) permits a bankruptcy court to conduct a jury trial only if all parties consent and the district court authorizes it.

SPECTOR GADON ROSEN VINCI P.C. v. AQUILINO · filed 2024-03-30(e)

If a party has retained its right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment, a bankruptcy court may only hear and adjudicate that party’s legal claims if all parties consent and the district court has authorized the bankruptcy court to conduct jury trials. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(e).

Section 157(e) requires the parties’ express consent for a bankruptcy court to conduct a jury trial; when a party entitled to a jury trial withholds consent, the district court has cause to withdraw the reference for trial.

Kurtz · filed 2025-11-14(e)

Because § 157(e) prohibits the bankruptcy court from conducting a jury trial absent consent; this provides sufficient “cause” to withdraw the reference as to trial.

Section 157(e) permits a specially designated bankruptcy judge to conduct a jury trial only with the express consent of all parties.

Namba · filed 2025-11-20(e)

The parties to this adversary proceeding, however, have not consented to this Court doing so. Therefore, the Court is not authorized to conduct a jury trial in this adversary proceeding.

Section 157(e) allows a bankruptcy court to conduct a jury trial only if the parties consent and the district court authorizes the bankruptcy court to do so.

Corbin · filed 2025-12-04(e)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(e), there are two elements that must be satisfied for a bankruptcy court to conduct a jury trial. First, the parties must consent. Second, the bankruptcy court must be authorized by the district court to conduct the jury trial.

Section 157(e) permits a bankruptcy judge to conduct a jury trial only if the district court specially designates the judge and all parties expressly consent.

Namba v. Jafroodi · filed 2025-11-30(e)

Therefore, the Court is not authorized to conduct a jury trial in this adversary proceeding.

Section 157(e) permits a bankruptcy judge to conduct a jury trial when the district court specially designates the judge and the parties expressly consent.

Schwinn Plan Committee v. AFS Cycle & Co. (In Re Schwinn Bicycle Co.) · filed 1995-08-03(e)

Although Congress recently authorized bankruptcy judges to conduct jury trials if specially designated to exercise such jurisdiction by the district court and with express consent of the parties, 28 U.S.C. § 157(e) (enacted by § 112 of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994, Pub.L. No. 103-394, (effective Oct. 22, 1994)), this case was filed before the effective date of the 1994 Amendments. Moreover, the Northern District of Illinois has yet to designate exercise of such authority (although a rule to so provide has been published for public comment). Thus, bankruptcy litigants generally must move before the district court to withdraw the reference in order to obtain trial by jury.

Section 157(b)(2)(F)’s grant of jurisdiction to bankruptcy courts over preference claims against nonconsenting defendants violates Article III.

Associated Grocers of Nebraska Cooperative, Inc. v. Nabisco Bakers (In Re Associated Grocers of Nebraska Cooperative, In · filed 1985-02-08(b)(2)(F)

Because neither Justice Brennan’s language in Marathon, which is dictum, nor First National Bank v. Hansen compel my decision to the contrary, I conclude that the statutory provision 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(2)(F) is unconstitutional and in direct violation of Article III of the United States Constitution, and that its attempt to vest jurisdiction in a non-Article III Court is improper and cannot be sustained.

Section 157’s allocation of authority between core and noncore bankruptcy proceedings satisfies Article III.

Production Steel, Inc. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (In Re Production Steel, Inc.) · filed 1985-04-17

It is the judgment of this Court that 28 U.S.C. §§ 157, 158 satisfy the requirements of Marathon and are therefore constitutional.

Section 157(b) constitutionally permits bankruptcy judges to hear and determine referred core proceedings, including preference actions.

Firestone v. Dale Beggs & Associates (In Re Northwest Cinema Corp.) · filed 1985-05-09(b)

Thus I conclude that I am bound by the Eighth Circuit’s opinion in Hansen and therefore conclude that 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) is constitutional. Therefore neither dismissal nor transfer of the proceeding to a district judge is required.

Section 157’s provisions allowing referral to bankruptcy judges and their adjudication of core preference and fraudulent conveyance proceedings are not invalid under Article III.

Nordberg v. Republic National Bank of Miami (In Re Chase & Sanborn Corp.) · filed 1985-07-03

However, the same Act which vested that jurisdiction in the district courts, also authorized each district court to refer such matters to the bankruptcy judges for the district, 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), and provided that: ... Although I believe the question to be a close one, I reject defendant’s contention and conclude that the pertinent provisions of the 1984 Act identified above are not invalid.

Section 157(b)(2)(F) constitutionally permits bankruptcy courts to determine preference claims arising under federal bankruptcy law.

Ginsberg v. Elkem Metals Co. (In Re Olympic Foundry Co.) · filed 1985-07-25(b)(2)(F)

This issue in a preference context was considered by In re Northwest Cinema Corporation, 49 B.R. 479, 13 BCD 44 (Bkrtcy.D.Mn.) which held § 157, as it relates to a preference suit, to be constitutional. That case contains an excellent discussion of the cases and authorities involving this issue. It presents a reasoned analysis and position which this court believes to be appropriate.

Section 157(b)(2)(F) permits bankruptcy judges to enter final orders in actions under 11 U.S.C. §§ 547(b) and 549(a), subject to appellate review by an Article III court.

Associated Grocers of Nebraska Cooperative, Inc. v. American Home Products Corp. (In Re Associated Grocers of Nebraska C · filed 1986-06-20(b)(2)(F)

In conclusion, this Court holds that Article III is not violated by the scheme Congress enacted granting the Bankruptcy Court the power under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F) to avoid preference transfers under 11 U.S.C. §§ 547(b) and 549(a), and enter final orders therein subject to traditional appellate review by an Article III court.

Section 157(b)(2)(F) permits bankruptcy judges to adjudicate preference actions, including against defendants who have not filed claims, without violating Article III.

DuVoisin v. Anderson (In Re Southern Industrial Banking Corp.) · filed 1986-09-26(b)(2)(F)

If that authority did not violate Article III this court may likewise adjudicate preference actions, even though a preference defendant may not have filed a claim. ... Accordingly, 28 U.S. C.A. § 157(b)(2)(F) (West Supp.1986) is not unconstitutional.

Section 157(b)(2) constitutionally permits bankruptcy judges to adjudicate this § 549 recovery proceeding.

Global International Airways Corp. Ex Rel. Unsecured Creditor's Committee v. Azima (In Re Global International Airways C · filed 1988-01-12(b)(2)

The Court therefore adopts that analysis and rejects defendants’ argument that section 157(b)(2) is unconstitutional as it applies to this case.

Section 157 constitutionally permits a district court to refer a core fraudulent-transfer proceeding to a bankruptcy court for final adjudication.

Wolff v. Kindorf (In re Kindorf) · filed 1990-04-02

Examined under the present jurisdictional scheme, this is a “core” matter, which the statute allows the District Court to refer to the Bankruptcy Court, through a “general reference”, for final adjudication, with the District Court sitting in the role of appellate court with the traditional power of review. ... Accordingly, the Court determines that the jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action is proper through the effect of 28 U.S.C. § 157 and that the statute is constitutional.

Section 157 constitutionally permits bankruptcy judges to hear core and non-core proceedings under district court control and review.

Land-O-Sun Dairies, Inc. v. Florida Supermarkets, Inc. (In Re Finevest Foods, Inc.) · filed 1992-08-19

For the above reasons, the adjudicatory power conferred upon bankruptcy judges under 28 U.S.C. § 157 accords fully with the United States Constitution.

Section 157 does not itself abrogate sovereign immunity.

Employer Solutions, Inc. v. United States of America Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service (In re Shared S · filed 2001-12-06

Therefore, 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 is not an abrogation of sovereign immunity.

Section 157(b)(2)(O)'s catch-all category of core proceedings must be read within constitutional limits.

Hayim v. Goetz (In Re Sol, LLC) · filed 2009-10-26(b)(2)(O)

This matter is not a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(0) — the so-called “catch-all” provision involving “other proceedings affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate or the adjustment of the debtor-creditor ... relationship.... ” This provision, while written broadly, is not to be construed broadly — rather it must be construed to conform to the constitutional proscription of Marathon.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to hear fraudulent conveyance claims and propose findings to the district court even when it cannot enter final judgment.

Paloian v. American Express Co. (In Re Canopy Financial, Inc.) · filed 2011-09-01

The Court holds that Stem did not strip the Bankruptcy Court of the authority to hear Paloian’s claims against American Express and to propose findings of fact and conclusions of law on those claims to this court.

Section 157(b) gives bankruptcy judges statutory authority to decide core proceedings, but Article III bars them from entering final judgments on independent state-law claims that will not necessarily be resolved through the claims allowance process.

Ortiz v. Aurora Health Care · filed 2011-12-30(b)

Even though Congress gave the bankruptcy judge statutory authority to adjudicate the debtors’ claims as “core” matters under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b), Stern v. Marshall reveals the absence of constitutional authority for the bankruptcy judge to enter summary judgment, or any form of final judgment, on the debtors’ claims.

Section 157(b)(2) constitutionally permits bankruptcy judges to decide core proceedings under its provisions other than the counterclaim provision addressed in Stern v. Marshall.

Badami v. Sears · filed 2012-01-13(b)(2)

Unless and until the Supreme Court visits other provisions of Section 157(b)(2), we take the Supreme Court at its word and hold that the balance of the authority granted to bankruptcy judges by Congress in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) is constitutional.

Section 157(b)(2)(C) treats estate counterclaims against claimants as core proceedings, but a bankruptcy court may enter a final judgment on a state-law counterclaim only when resolving it is necessary to decide the claimant’s claim.

Frazin v. Haynes & Boone, L.L.P. · filed 2013-10-01(b)(2)(C)

Frazin brought state-law counterclaims against the Attorneys, which, like the counterclaim brought by Vickie in Stern, are defined by § 157(b)(2)(C) as “core proceedings.” ... However, we hold that the bankruptcy court erred in entering a final judgment on Frazin’s DTPA state-law counterclaim because it was not necessary to resolve it in the course of ruling on the Attorneys’ fee applications.

Section 157(b)(2)(C) does not authorize a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment on a state-law counterclaim that need not be resolved when ruling on a creditor’s claim.

Frazin v. Haynes & Boone, L.L.P. · filed 2013-11-13(b)(2)(C)

Because it was not necessary to decide the DTPA claim to rule on the Attorneys’ fee applications, we conclude that the bankruptcy court lacked the authority to enter a final judgment as to that claim.

Section 157(b)(2)(C)'s limitation on final orders for state law counterclaims does not prevent a bankruptcy court from entering a final order in an involuntary petition proceeding that involves no such claim.

Gary Russell Haymond · filed 2021-09-28(b)(2)(C)

Neither § 157(b)(2)(C) nor state law claims are implicated in this proceeding, so this Court concludes that the narrow limitation imposed by Stern does not prohibit this Court from entering a final order here.