28 U.S.C. § 157

Although § 157(b) lists fraudulent transfer actions as core, bankruptcy courts generally follow non-core procedures and enter proposed findings and conclusions unless the parties consent to a final judgment.

Daniel v. Jones Family Holdings, LLC (In re Daniel) · filed 2016-09-02(b)

Pursuant to Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462, 131 S.Ct. 2594, 180 L.Ed.2d 475 (2011), adjudication of fraudulent transfer actions under 11 U.S.C. § 548 follows the practice of non-core proceedings with the bankruptcy court having authority only to enter proposed findings of fact and conclusion of law, despite the cause of action being listed in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) as core.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to enter a final order in a core proceeding concerning the validity or priority of a lien.

Liebzeit v. Intercity State Bank (In re Blanchard) · filed 2014-10-27(b)(2)

Alternatively, this Court has the ability to enter a final order under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H), providing that that the determination of the validity, priority or extent of a lien is a core proceeding.

Section 157 allows a bankruptcy judge to enter final judgment on motions under Civil Rules 59 and 60 relating to a core dischargeability proceeding.

Cervac v. Littman (In re Littman) · filed 2014-09-11(b)(1)

It follows, therefore, that motions for relief under Civil Rules 59 and 60 relating to the foregoing are also core proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) & (2). Accordingly, final judgment is within the scope of the court’s authority.

Section 157(c)(1) does not require a bankruptcy court to refer dismissal of core matters to the district court for entry of judgment.

Doctors Hospital of Hyde Park, Inc. v. Desnick (In Re Doctors Hospital of Hyde Park, Inc.) · filed 2004-02-26(c)(1)

The court will dismiss the claims discussed above without referring this matter to the district court for entry of judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) because all of the issues decided are within the core jurisdiction of the court.

Section 157(b)(2)(B), (E) and (O) gives bankruptcy courts authority to enter final orders in core proceedings involving claims against the estate, turnover, and related debtor-creditor disputes.

Commercial Financial Services, Inc. v. Bartmann (In Re Commercial Financial Services, Inc.) · filed 2000-11-07(b)(2)(B), (E) and (O)

The Court finds and concludes that it has core jurisdiction over CFS’s breach of contract, turnover and Section 502(d) claims and the Bartmanns’ defenses to those claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), (E) and (O), and has authority to enter final orders in this proceeding.

Section 157(b) permits bankruptcy judges to rule on motions to dismiss in referred bankruptcy cases.

In Re Balaja · filed 1996-01-04(b)

Bankruptcy judges are accorded the power to “hear and determine” referred .eases by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). This power encompasses ruling on motions to dismiss.

Section 157(b)(1) permits bankruptcy judges to enter judgment in core proceedings involving rights created by federal bankruptcy law.

In the Matter of Dorothy M. Jenkins, Debtor-Appellant · filed 1993-05-14(b)(1)

Thus, this proceeding fell into one of the two broad categories of core proceedings since it involved a right created by federal bankruptcy law, and the bankruptcy judge had the authority to enter judgment.

Section 157(b)(2)(O) permits a bankruptcy court to enter a final order in an ancillary proceeding when the parties agreed to treat the underlying adversary proceeding as core.

Hurley v. Gaertner (In Re Hurley) · filed 1992-11-13(b)(2)(O)

Hurley and Gaertner agreed to treat the underlying adversary proceeding as a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0), so this Court had jurisdiction to enter a final judgment in the underlying proceeding. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to enter a final order in this ancillary proceeding.

Section 157 permits bankruptcy judges to adjudicate and enter final orders in core proceedings, subject to district court review.

Duvoisin v. Kennerly, Montgomery, Howard & Finley (In re Southern Industrial Banking Corp.) · filed 1991-03-12(b)(2)

Pursuant to § 157(b)(2), bankruptcy judges may adjudicate and enter final orders in core proceedings subject to review of the district court.

Section 157(b) permits a bankruptcy court to make a final determination in a core proceeding.

Browning v. Williams (In Re Silver Wheel Freightlines, Inc.) · filed 1986-03-07(b)

This matter is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) and as such is susceptible of final determination by this Court.

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to enter a final order on an involuntary Chapter 11 petition because it is a case under title 11.

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. DJF Realty & Suppliers, Inc. · filed 1986-04-03(b)(1)

In the present case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) (Supp.1985), the Bankruptcy Court entered a final order dismissing the involuntary petitions. ... As an involuntary petition brought pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Code, this was clearly a “case under title 11” over which the Bankruptcy Court had jurisdiction to render a final order, which is appealable to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158 (Supp.1985).

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment in a proceeding it determines is core.

Vincent Gaines Implement Co. v. United States (In Re Vincent Gaines Implement Co.) · filed 1986-08-05(b)(2)(E)

This adversary proceeding is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E). The Court has jurisdiction to enter a final judgment.

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to enter a dispositive order in a core proceeding, including a damages action that interferes with administration of an involuntary bankruptcy case.

General American Corp. v. Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc. (In Re Ross) · filed 1986-09-19(b)(1)

This court has concluded that this Damages Action is one "arising from” the Ross Involuntary. If a matter is a core proceeding, i.e., “arising from,” the bankruptcy court may enter a dispositive order. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

Section 157(b)(1) authorizes a bankruptcy judge to enter a final order in a core proceeding.

Diaconx Corp. v. Hamilton Bank (In Re Diaconx Corp.) · filed 1987-01-13(b)(1)

This matter is a core proceeding. ... Accordingly, I will enter a final order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment in a core proceeding concerning liability on a note and a mortgage lien.

Sanders v. First National Bank of Camden (In re Sanders) · filed 1987-01-21(b)(2)(B), (K)

The proceeding before the Court is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) and (K). The Court has jurisdiction to enter a final judgment in the case.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to enter an interlocutory order in a non-core related proceeding without submitting proposed findings to the district court.

One-Eighty Investments, Ltd. v. First International Bank of San Antonio, N.A. (In Re One-Eighty Investments, Ltd.) · filed 1987-02-11(c)(1)

After considering the matter the court concludes that Congress did not intend to impose the burden on the district court that would result if bankruptcy courts could not enter interlocutory orders.

Section 157(c)(2) requires the consent of all parties before a bankruptcy judge may enter a final order in a non-core proceeding.

Rushton v. Traub (In Re Nell) · filed 1987-02-23(c)(2)

A final order entered by a bankruptcy judge in a non-core proceeding without consent of all parties is invalid because the bankruptcy court is without statutory authority to fully exercise the district court’s bankruptcy jurisdiction.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) and (K) permits a bankruptcy judge to enter final judgment in a proceeding classified as core under those provisions.

Sanders v. Merchants & Planters Bank (In Re Sanders) · filed 1987-01-21(b)(2)(B), (b)(2)(K)

The proceeding before the Court is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) and (K). The Court has jurisdiction to enter a final judgment in the case.

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear and determine referred core proceedings and enter appropriate orders and judgments.

In Re Baker · filed 1987-02-23(b)(1)

This iá a core proceeding as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0); pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), a Bankruptcy Judge for this district may hear and determine all core proceedings arising in a case under Title 11 referred under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), and the Bankruptcy Judge may enter appropriate orders and judgments.

Section 157(b) authorizes a bankruptcy judge to enter final judgment in a referred proceeding to recover preferences or fraudulent conveyances.

Eisenberg v. Guardian Group, Inc. (In Re Adams, Browning & Bates, Ltd.) · filed 1987-02-25(b)

Judge Altimari’s admonition that the bankruptcy court shall enter no final judgment is in square conflict with 28 U.S.C. § 157(b), which authorizes the bankruptcy judge to whom a preference or fraudulent conveyance action is referred to enter a final judgment.

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to enter a final order in a core proceeding but does not require one.

Teton Exploration Drilling, Inc. v. Bokum Resources Corp. · filed 1987-05-18(b)(1)

We do not believe § 157 required the bankruptcy court to enter a final order rather than submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court.

Section 157(c)(1) allows a bankruptcy court to hear a related non-core proceeding, but absent the parties’ consent it must submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court instead of entering a final judgment.

Gex Kentucky, Inc. v. Wolf Creek Collieries Co. (In Re Gex Kentucky, Inc.) · filed 1987-09-21(c)(1)

Therefore, this court may hear the proceeding but it may not issue final judgment or orders absent the consent of the parties. It must instead submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court.

Section 157(c)(1) prevents a bankruptcy court from entering a final order in a non-core proceeding without the parties’ consent, but permits it to deny a motion to dismiss because that order is not final.

Petrolia Corp. v. Elam (In Re Petrolia Corp.) · filed 1987-11-06(c)(1)

Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), this Court lacks authority to enter a final order such as an order granting a motion to dismiss; however, this Court does have the authority to enter an order denying a motion to dismiss, because such an order is not a final order.

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to enter a final order in a Chapter 11 case.

Gordon Car & Truck Rental, Inc. v. American Motors Leasing Corp. (In Re Gordon Car & Truck Rental Inc.) · filed 1987-12-04(b)(1)

As a petition for relief filed pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Code, this was clearly a “case under title 11” over which the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to render an order making a final determination on the merits of the outstanding claims to the licensing agreements, and that order is appealable to this court.

Section 157 treats these proceedings concerning claims to grain sale proceeds as core proceedings in which the bankruptcy court may enter a final judgment.

Farmers Rice Milling Co. v. Hawkins (In Re Bearhouse, Inc.) · filed 1988-01-22(b)(2)(B), (b)(2)(K)

The proceedings before the Court are core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) and (K). The Court has jurisdiction to enter a final judgment in these proceedings.

Section 157(c)(1) requires proposed findings and conclusions in a related proceeding to be submitted to the district court for entry of a final order.

Ehre v. New York Ex Rel. Hennessy (In Re Adirondack Railway Corp.) · filed 1988-03-16(c)(1)

Therefore, any findings of fact, conclusions of law and proposed order must be submitted to the District Court for entry of a final order pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 157(c)(1) (West 1979 & Supp.1987).

Section 157(b)(2)(H) treats fraudulent transfer proceedings as core proceedings in which a bankruptcy court may enter a final order.

Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Frates (In Re Kaiser Steel Corp.) · filed 1988-03-28(b)(2)(H)

The Court has previously determined that this is a “core” matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H) and shall enter a final order, accordingly.

Section 157 limits a bankruptcy court in a related, non-core proceeding to recommended findings for the district court; it cannot enter a final judgment denying discharge.

United States v. Richardson (In Re Richardson) · filed 1988-04-05(c)(1)

Nevertheless, as this court has above observed, the district court has remanded this related action to the bankruptcy court, not for “recommended findings,” but for actual “findings” which must support a new judgment to be issued by this court. ... Accordingly, in this action, as in the Dowell case, supra, the court must regard itself as without the power to enter a judgment denying discharge.

Section 157 treats a claim allowance proceeding as core and permits the bankruptcy court to issue a final order in it.

Matter of Executive Office Centers, Inc. · filed 1988-10-21(b)(1), (b)(2)(B)

This is a core proceeding and this Court may issue a final order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) and (b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) and (M) permits a bankruptcy judge to enter final orders on core proceedings involving lease motions and a complaint determining the nature of the related transactions.

Victoria Hardwood Lumber Co. v. Cecil I. Walker MacHinery Co. (In Re Victoria Hardwood Lumber Co.) · filed 1988-11-07(b)(2)(E) & (M)

Both the Motions and the Complaint, for which Counts I and II seek a judgment declaring the nature of certain transactions between Victoria and Walker, are core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E) & (M) in which this bankruptcy judge may enter final orders.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy judge to enter final orders in core proceedings concerning the nature of the equipment transactions and related motions.

Victoria Hardwood Lumber Co. v. Holt-Refakis Equipment Co. (In Re Victoria Hardwood Lumber Co.) · filed 1988-11-07(b)(2)(K), (M)

The Motions and the Complaint, ... for which Counts I and II seek a judgment declaring the nature of certain transactions between Victoria and Holt-Refakis, are core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K) & (M) in which this bankruptcy judge may enter final orders.

Section 157(b)(2)(L) treats confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan as a core proceeding in which a bankruptcy judge may enter a final order.

In Re Bailey · filed 1988-11-23(b)(2)(L)

This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(L) in which this bankruptcy judge may enter a final order.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy judge to enter a final order in a core proceeding concerning the administration of a bankruptcy estate.

In Re Watson · filed 1988-12-12(b)(1), (b)(2)(A)

This is a core proceeding upon which this Court may enter a final order. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) and (2)(A).

Section 157(c)(1)’s rule for final orders in non-core, related proceedings does not apply when a proceeding is unrelated to the bankruptcy case.

Unified Data Systems, Inc. v. Almarc Corp. (In Re Almarc Corp.) · filed 1988-12-14(c)(1)

However, as this proceeding is not related, the directive of § 157(c)(1) does not literally apply. ... Therefore, there is no bar to this court entering, as opposed to recommending, a final order dismissing this proceeding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to decide interlocutory matters in a non-core proceeding but reserves final orders for the district judge.

THB Corp. v. Essex Builders Co. (In Re THB Corp.) · filed 1988-12-22(c)(1)

A bankruptcy judge may adjudicate interlocutory matters under § 157(c)(1); the statute preserves only “final” orders for entry by the district judge, and its procedure would be unworkable if the district judge had to adjudicate interlocutory matters.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy judge to enter a final order in a core proceeding concerning an alleged violation of the discharge injunction.

In Re Montoya · filed 1988-12-15(b)(2)(O), (b)(2)(I)

This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(O) and (I) in which this bankruptcy judge may enter a final order.

Section 157(b) authorizes a bankruptcy court to enter a final, appealable judgment in preference litigation.

Stanley-Southwest Investments, Inc. v. Colonial Frost Bank, N.A. (In re Stanley-Southwest Investments, Inc.) · filed 1988-12-31(b)

This court has the jurisdiction to enter a final, appealable judgment in preference litigation. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157(b) permits a bankruptcy court to enter a final order in a core proceeding.

In Re Watson · filed 1989-01-30(b)(1), (b)(2)(A)

This is a core proceeding in which the Court may enter a final order. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) and (2)(A).

Section 157 treats a trustee’s proceeding challenging a mortgage lien as a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy court may enter final judgment.

Hawkins v. First National Bank, Crossett (In Re Bearhouse, Inc.) · filed 1989-02-13(b)(2)(F) and (K)

This proceeding is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F) and (K), and this Court has jurisdiction to enter a final judgment in the case.

Section 157(c)(2) allows a bankruptcy court to enter a final order in a noncore proceeding with the consent of all parties.

Scott v. Equitable Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n (In Re German) · filed 1989-03-06(c)(2)

The Court is aware that 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2) requires the consent of all parties to the proceeding.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy judge to enter a binding final order in a non-core proceeding when the parties are deemed to have consented by failing to object.

Fiero Production, Inc. v. Conoco, Inc. (In Re Fiero Production, Inc.) · filed 1989-06-16(c)(2)

This is a non-core proceeding, but in the absence to objections to the contrary, the parties are deemed to have consented to the entry of a binding final order by this court.

Section 157(b)(1) authorizes bankruptcy judges to determine cases and proceedings and enter appropriate orders and judgments.

Hoffman v. Connecticut Department of Income Maintenance · filed 1989-06-23(b)(1)

That provision authorizes bankruptcy judges to determine “cases” and “proceedings,” not issues, and provides that the judge may “enter appropriate orders and judgments,” not merely bind the governmental unit by its determinations.

Section 157 treats proceedings to determine claims and liens as core proceedings in which the bankruptcy court may enter a final judgment.

In Re Benefield · filed 1989-07-13(b)(2)(B) and (K)

The proceeding before the Court is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) and (K). The Court has jurisdiction to enter a final judgment in the case.

Section 157(b) permits a bankruptcy court to hear and determine core proceedings covered by subsection (b)(2)(L).

Cyphers v. Froug (In re Froug) · filed 1989-06-27(b)(1), (b)(2)(L)

This is a core proceeding which the court may hear and determine pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) and (b)(2)(L).

A bankruptcy judge may issue a final order in a core proceeding concerning the extent and validity of liens.

Gline v. Horn & Co., P.C. (In Re Isley) · filed 1989-08-28(b)(1)

Since this matter constitutes a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E), the court will issue a final order in conjunction with this opinion. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

An objection to the bankruptcy court’s authority to enter judgment under § 157(b)(1) is waived when the core-non core issue is not properly raised in the pleadings or pretrial order.

DeRosa v. Boston Bakery & Italian Food Specialty, Inc. (In Re DeRosa) · filed 1989-09-08(b)(1)

The defendants did not raise the question of the core-non core issue in the pleadings, except in a very oblique way, in their Answer. The issue was not raised again until the start of the trial. We ruled then, as we do now, that the defendants have waived this defense by not properly raising it, either in the pleadings or in the pretrial order, joint or otherwise. For these reasons, we enter a judgment herein, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

Section 157(b) permits a bankruptcy court to enter final orders in core proceedings, including matters concerning estate administration and lien determinations.

In Re Sunrise R v. Inc. · filed 1989-09-28(b)(1)

Furthermore, as matters concerning the administration of the estate (28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A)), determinations of the validity, extent, or priority of liens (28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E)), and other proceedings affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate (28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0)) are considered “core proceedings”, this court has the authority to enter final orders in respect thereto.

Section 157 treats the stay relief and plan confirmation matters before the court as core proceedings on which the bankruptcy court may enter a final judgment.

Farmers & Merchants Bank of Des Arc v. Gore (In Re Gore) · filed 1989-12-20(b)(2)(G), (L), (M)

The matters before the Court are core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G), (L) and (M), and the Court has jurisdiction to enter a final judgment.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to enter a final order in core proceedings concerning estate administration, turnover of property, and objections to discharge.

Ray v. Graham (In Re Graham) · filed 1990-03-06(b)(2)(A), (E), (J)

Moreover, the Court finds that they are “core proceedings” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (E) and (J) and may enter a final order.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy judge to enter a final order in a non-core proceeding when all parties consent.

Hill v. Bank of Falkner (In re Hill) · filed 1990-03-16(c)(2)

This is a non-core adversary proceeding; however, all of the parties have consented to this Court entering a final order in this proceeding pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2).

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to enter appropriate orders and judgments in a case under title 11.

Paroline v. Doling · filed 1990-06-19(b)(1)

Because this matter is a “case under title 11,” this court “may enter appropriate orders and judgments.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

Section 157(b) permits a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment in a core proceeding, including a proceeding involving preferences or liens.

Madcat Two, Inc. v. Commercial National Bank of Shreveport (In Re Madcat Two, Inc.) · filed 1991-02-25(b)(1)

Moreover, the Court finds that this is a “core proceeding” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), as exemplified in § 157(b)(2)(F) and (K). Accordingly, this Court may enter a final judgment.

A proceeding to decide excusable neglect under Bankruptcy Rule 9033(c) is core under § 157(b)(2)(A), allowing the bankruptcy judge to enter a final order under § 157(b)(1).

Auto Specialties Manufacturing Co. v. Sachs (In Re Auto Specialties Manufacturing Co.) · filed 1991-10-31(b)(2)(A)

Necessarily this is a core proceeding falling within the ambit of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and thus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) the court may enter a final order subject to appellate review under § 158.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to enter a final order in a noncore related proceeding when the parties impliedly consent.

Sumitomo Trust & Banking Co. v. Holly's, Inc. (In Re Holly's, Inc.) · filed 1992-04-28(c)(2)

However, to the extent that this court must interpret state law and the matter may be a noncore, related proceeding, the parties have impliedly consented to this court entering a final order.

Section 157(c) treats a motion for release from incarceration that began before the bankruptcy petition as a related proceeding, in which the bankruptcy judge cannot enter a final order without all parties’ consent.

In re Williams · filed 1992-06-30(c)

Matters "related to a case under title 11” may be referred to the bankruptcy court, but a bankruptcy judge may not enter a final order in a proceeding "related to a case under title 11” without the consent of all parties. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c). This Court holds that, where, as here, the debtor was incarcerated prior to the filing of a petition in bankruptcy, a motion for release constitutes a proceeding "related to a case under title 11.” Accordingly, this Court does not have the power to order the release of the debtor.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to enter a final order in a related non-core matter when the parties impliedly consent through their conduct and failure to object.

In Re Earl · filed 1992-10-05(c)(2)

The parties have, however, impliedly consented to this Court’s jurisdiction to enter a final order in resolution of this related matter both in voting to confirm the Plan subject to resolution of the lien priority dispute at a later time, and further, in not objecting to this Court’s assumption of jurisdiction to determine the matter when that later time finally arose.

Section 157(c)(1) does not make a bankruptcy court’s decision in a non-core related proceeding a final judgment.

Matter of Hansler · filed 1993-04-07(c)(1)

Because the bankruptcy court had "related to" jurisdiction over this non-core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(c)(1) and 1334(b), the bankruptcy court's decision was not a final judgment.

Section 157(c)(1) requires a bankruptcy judge hearing a non-core related proceeding to submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court for final judgment.

Fedders North America, Inc. v. Branded Products, Inc. (In Re Branded Products, Inc.) · filed 1993-04-09(c)(1)

When a bankruptcy judge hears a non-core matter, the judge submits proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court, which in turn enters a final judgment.

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to enter final orders and judgments in a core proceeding without the parties’ consent.

Johnston Environmental Corp. v. Knight · filed 1993-04-23(b)(1)

It follows from this conclusion that the bankruptcy court had the authority to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law and to render final orders and judgments. The bankruptcy court was not required merely to submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court, and thus did not err in resolving the case and entering the appropriate orders without consent of the parties.

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to enter a final order imposing sanctions because sanctions are a core proceeding.

Ross v. Thomas G. Lovett, Jr., Elli M.A. Mills, Kimberly Hughes · filed 1993-05-14(b)(1)

The bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to issue a final order imposing sanctions. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) (bankruptcy court has authority to enter final order in core proceeding); Matter of Memorial Estates, Inc., 950 F.2d 1364, 1370 (7th Cir. 1991) (imposition of sanctions is core proceeding), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 2969 (1992).

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to enter a final order in a non-core, related proceeding when the parties consent, including by implied consent.

Thelen v. Cushion (In re Thelen) · filed 1993-07-23(c)(2)

The court may enter a final order in this non-core, related proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2) because the parties have impliedly, if not expressly, consented to entry of such an order.

Section 157(c)(1) bars a bankruptcy court from issuing a final order in a related, non-core proceeding without the parties’ consent.

Hile v. Lewis (In Re Lewis) · filed 1994-01-18(c)(1)

Absent the consent of the parties, Section 157(c)(1) does not permit Bankruptcy Courts to issue final orders in non-core and related proceedings. Since the record does not reflect the consent of all parties, this Court will not make a determination regarding the existence or validity of the waterline assessment.

Section 157(c)(1) limits a bankruptcy court’s authority to finally decide non-core related proceedings without consent.

In Re South Oakes Furniture, Inc. · filed 1994-05-12(c)(1)

Proceedings involving the guarantor would be non-core "related to” proceedings. As such, this Court could not render a final determination regarding the rights of the various parties without consent.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy judge to enter final orders in a non-core related proceeding with the parties’ consent, which may be implied from a party’s failure to object.

In re Nichols & Associates Tryon Properties, Inc. · filed 1994-09-14(c)(2)

Here, we find that United Capitol impliedly consented to the bankruptcy court's adjudication of the adversary proceeding. ... Despite repeated opportunities before the bankruptcy and district courts to object to the bankruptcy court's exercise of jurisdiction over the adversary proceeding filed against it, United Capitol remained silent, acquiescing in the bankruptcy court's authority to enter appropriate orders and judgments in the matter.

Section 157(b)(1) authorizes bankruptcy judges to enter orders on in forma pauperis motions ancillary to judgments in core dischargeability proceedings.

Huff v. Brooks (In Re Brooks) · filed 1994-12-14(b)(1)

Section 157(b)(1) authorizes bankruptcy judges to “enter appropriate orders and judgments” in core matters. A dischargeability case under 11 U.S.C. § 523 is clearly a core matter. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I). Entry of orders ancillary to a dischargeability judgment is appropriate. In this case, the appeal and IFP motion are not new matters; they complete the adversary proceeding at the bankruptcy level.

Section 157(b)(1) authorizes a bankruptcy court hearing a core proceeding to enter an appropriate money judgment.

In Re Erwin A. Porges, Also Known as E. Allen Porges, Debtor. Erwin A. Porges, Also Known as E. Allen Porges v. Gruntal · filed 1995-01-05(b)(1)

Nor does Porges contest the fact that an adversary proceeding is a “core proceeding,” see 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B)-(C); see also In re Manville Forest Prods., 896 F.2d at 1389, and thus the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to “enter appropriate orders and judgments.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1). ... Nothing in the Bankruptcy Code or other federal law supports such a construction.

Section 157 limits a bankruptcy court’s authority to enter final judgment in a non-core proceeding.

Traylor v. First Family Financial Services, Inc. (In re Traylor) · filed 1995-05-22(c)

The action is a non-core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). The court does not have the authority to enter final judgments in non-core proceedings.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to enter dispositive orders on core motions for a stay and for appointment of experts and costs.

In Re Norris · filed 1995-08-14(b)(1)

This debtor seeks relief in the form of a stay and for appointment of experts and costs. Those motions are within the core jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court to enter dispositive orders.

Section 157(c)(1) requires the district court to enter final judgment in a non-core proceeding when the parties have not consented to final judgment by the bankruptcy judge.

Sender v. Buchanan (In Re Hedged-Investments Associates, Inc.) · filed 1996-05-23(c)(1)

Thus, the district court entered final judgment in this case pursuant to § 157(c)(1). It did not hear the case in its appellate capacity under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a).

Section 157(b) permits bankruptcy courts to enter final orders in core proceedings, including matters concerning estate administration.

Speleos v. McCarthy · filed 1996-07-19(b)

Title 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) permits the bankruptcy court to issue final orders and judgments in “core” proceedings arising under title 11. ... Both the adversarial proceeding in which the first injunction was issued and the order approving the trustee’s final report and account were “core” proceedings.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to enter a final order in a related non-core proceeding after district court referral and party consent; a party may imply consent by waiting until after an unfavorable order to object.

McLean Square Associates, G.P. v. J.W. Fortune, Inc. (In Re McLean Square Associates, G.P.) · filed 1996-08-30(c)(2)

As noted, § 157(c)(2) authorizes bankruptcy courts to enter final orders in non-core related proceedings if the district court referred the matter and the parties consented to this power. ... This circuit, as well as many others, sensibly hold that a party, who fails to object to a bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over a non-core related matter until after the entry of an unfavorable order, has impliedly consented to the court’s power. ... Thus, Fortune impliedly consented to the entry of a final judgment by the bankruptcy court.

In a related non-core proceeding, affirmatively invoking the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction can supply the consent needed for the bankruptcy judge to enter a final order.

Southerland v. Otonicar (In re Southerland) · filed 1996-10-09(c)(2)

Although silence does not imply consent, affirmatively invoking the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court, certainly does supply the necessary consent.

Section 157 treats a motion to remand as a core proceeding on which a bankruptcy judge may enter an order.

Roper v. American Health & Fire Insurance (In Re Roper) · filed 1996-10-31(b)(1)

After analyzing relevant case law, Code sections, and Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, this Court is satisfied that a Motion to Remand, in and of itself, is “core” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157; and also that it has the authority to enter an order on the matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1452.

Section 157(b)(1) gives bankruptcy courts authority to make final determinations in core matters, including decisions on removal, abstention, and remand even when the underlying action is non-core.

Twyman v. Wedlo, Inc. · filed 1996-11-04(b)(1)

But the law remains that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) a bankruptcy court has complete authority to hear, adjudicate and make final determinations of all core matters pending before the court. And while a bankruptcy court may ultimately determine that a civil action is itself a non-core matter, the determinations of whether the removal of that action was proper, whether the bankruptcy court should abstain in the matter or whether the matter should be remanded to the state court, are themselves core matters.

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment on core claims arising from a creditor’s postpetition refusal to release a debtor’s property.

Enjet, Inc. v. Stapp Towing Co. (In re Enjet, Inc.) · filed 1997-03-05(b)(1)

Accordingly, the court finds that the debt- or’s claims are core proceedings and that this court may enter a final judgment on the claims in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to enter a monetary judgment while determining that a debt is nondischargeable.

In Re James D. Kennedy, Jr., Debtor. Alan D. Cowen and Josephine Cowen v. James D. Kennedy, Jr. · filed 1997-03-21(b)(1)

Congress has prescribed that bankruptcy courts “may hear and determine ... all core proceedings ... and may enter appropriate orders and judgments.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1). ... We conclude, in conformity with all of the circuits which have considered the matter, that the bankruptcy court acted within its jurisdiction in entering a monetary judgment against Kennedy in conjunction with a finding that the debt was non-dischargeable.

Section 157 permits bankruptcy judges to enter final orders in core proceedings but does not require them to do so in every core proceeding.

In Re Carrico · filed 1997-12-02(b)(1)

Nothing in 28 U.S.C. § 157 mandates that bankruptcy judges enter final orders in all core proceedings, only that they may. Rule 9020(c) works within 28 U.S.C. § 157 to establish special procedures for review of contested contempt orders.

Section 157(c) limits a bankruptcy judge’s authority to enter a final order in a non-core proceeding without the parties’ consent.

Bannistor v. Colotone, Inc. (In Re Charter Graphic Services, Inc.) · filed 1998-05-06(c)

The plaintiffs’ third amended complaint raises a non-core matter. The parties have not expressly consented to the entry of a final order by this court.

Section 157(b)(1) lets bankruptcy judges hear and determine core proceedings and enter appropriate orders and judgments, subject to review under section 158.

Knudson v. Stoebner (In Re Yukon Energy Corp.) · filed 1998-11-25(b)(1)

Moreover, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) states clearly that “[b]ank-ruptcy judges may hear and determine all cases under title 11 and all core proceedings ... and may enter appropriate orders and judgments, subject to review under section 158 of this title.”

Section 157(b) permits a bankruptcy court to enter a final judgment in a core proceeding.

Doub v. Hartford Fire Insurance (In Re Medlin) · filed 1998-12-17(b)(1), (b)(2)(F), and (b)(2)(K)

This is a core proceeding as that term is defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F) and (K). Accordingly, this court has the power to enter a final judgment on the trustee’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), § 1334(a), and the general order of reference in this district.

Section 157(b) permits bankruptcy judges to finally determine core proceedings, including allowance of claims and validity of liens.

Professional Investors Insurance Group, Inc. v. United Overseas Bank (Luxembourg), S.A. (In Re Professional Investors In · filed 1999-02-04(b)(2)(B) and (K)

The allowance of claims and the avoidance of liens on property of a bankruptcy estate are core matters over which this court has jurisdiction to enter a final order.

Section 157(b)(2) treats core bankruptcy proceedings as matters the bankruptcy court may decide by final order.

In Re Kang · filed 1999-02-09(b)(2)

The determination of property exempt from a bankruptcy estate constitutes a core matter over which this court has jurisdiction to enter a final order. 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2) and 1334.

Section 157(b)(2) identifies core bankruptcy proceedings in which a bankruptcy judge may enter final judgments.

Brandt v. Carlson (In Re Carlson) · filed 1999-03-10(b)(2)

These are core proceedings pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) in which a bankruptcy judge may enter final judgments.

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to enter a final order in a core proceeding.

Bair v. United States of America (Internal Revenue Service) (In Re Bair) · filed 1999-04-09(b)(1)

The Court may enter a final order in this core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), (b)(2)© (1994).

Section 157(c) requires a bankruptcy court in a non-core proceeding to submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court for a final order.

Inskeep Ex Rel. Estate of Griffin Trading Co. v. Checkers, Simon & Rosner, LLP (In Re Griffin Trading Co.) · filed 2000-07-20(c)

However, in non-core proceedings a bankruptcy court must submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court, which has the power to enter the final order. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c). ... This proceeding is a non-core proceeding “related to” a bankruptcy under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b).

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to enter final dispositive orders in non-core proceedings when the parties agree.

Estate of Atkins v. AMW Cable Co. (In re Winslow Communications, Inc.) · filed 2000-10-13(c)(2)

Although certain parts of the proceeding might be defined as “non-core,” the parties have agreed that this court may enter final dispositive orders as contemplated by 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2).

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to enter a final order in a non-core proceeding when the parties consent.

National General Insurance v. E.L. Garner, Inc. (In re E.L. Garner, Inc.) · filed 2000-12-14(c)(2)

The remaining dispute would be considered predominantly a non-core proceeding, but the parties have consented to this court entering a final order as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2).

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to enter final orders in a non-core proceeding when the parties agree.

River Oaks Furniture, Inc. v. BDO Seidman (In re River Oaks Furniture, Inc.) · filed 2000-12-22(c)(2)

Although the issue, which is the subject of the motion for partial summary judgment, would be categorized primarily as a non-core proceeding, the parties have agreed that this court may enter final orders in this adversary proceeding as contemplated by 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2).

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to treat a proceeding as core and enter a final judgment when core matters predominate over a non-core claim.

Bethea v. Robert J. Adams & Associates (In Re Bethea) · filed 2002-03-29(b)

Whenever core matters predominate over a non-core count, such as the statelaw professional negligence cause of action, the Court may determine that the entire proceeding is a core proceeding. ... These proceedings are therefore within the core jurisdiction of this Court, which will enter a final judgment.

Section 157(b)(2) allows a bankruptcy court to treat an involuntary petition and related fee request as a core matter over which it may enter a final order.

In Re Allied Riser Communications Corp. · filed 2002-08-08(b)(2)(A) and (O)

The determination of an involuntary petition, including requests for attorney’s fees under 11 U.S.C. § 303(i), constitutes a core matter over which this court has jurisdiction to enter a final order. 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) and 1334(b).

Section 157(b)(2)(I) treats a proceeding to determine the dischargeability of a particular debt as a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy court may enter a final order.

In Re Grilliot · filed 2002-09-19(b)(2)(I)

As such a determination concerns the dischargeability of a particular debt, this matter is a core proceeding over which this Court has been conferred with the jurisdictional authority to enter final orders. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I).

Section 157(b)(2) identifies core bankruptcy proceedings that a bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

In Re NH Holdings, Inc. · filed 2002-10-28(b)(2)

This Court has jurisdiction over these Cases pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334. The Confirmation Hearing is a “core proceeding” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2), and this Court has jurisdiction to enter a Final Order with respect thereto.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) and (K) classifies this proceeding as core and permits the bankruptcy court to enter a final judgment.

Roper v. Barclay (In Re Roper) · filed 2002-10-19(b)(2)(I) and (K)

This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I) and (K), and the Court has jurisdiction to enter a final judgment in this case.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) treats determinations of the dischargeability of particular debts as core proceedings that a bankruptcy court may finally decide.

Binger v. Bloomfield (In Re Bloomfield) · filed 2003-01-15(b)(2)(I)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I), this type of action is deemed a core proceeding over which this Court has been conferred with the jurisdictional authority to enter final orders.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) treats determinations of the dischargeability of particular debts as core proceedings that bankruptcy courts may finally decide.

Cates v. Arkansas Dept. of Finance & Administration (In Re Cates) · filed 2003-02-24(b)(2)(I)

The proceeding before the Court is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I) (2000), and the Court has jurisdiction to enter a final judgment in this case.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to enter a final order in a non-core matter with the parties’ consent, which a letter to the court can evidence.

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. Credit Suisse First Boston (In Re Exide Technologies, Inc.) · filed 2003-08-21(c)(2)

I am required to analyze each count separately and have authority to enter a final order only with respect to core matters (Halper, 164 F.3d at 839-840), unless the parties consent to the entry of a final order by this court on non-core matters. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2). At the Court’s request, the Defendants submitted a letter on August 20, 2003 [Doc. No. 64], expressing their views on this subject; the letter evidences their § 157(c)(2) consent.

Section 157(c) prevents a bankruptcy judge from entering a final order in a non-core proceeding without the parties’ consent; the judge may submit proposed findings and conclusions.

Lucre Management Group, LLC v. Schempp Real Estate, LLC (In Re Schempp Real Estate, LLC) · filed 2003-12-19(c)

Plaintiffs specifically do not consent. As a result, this Court cannot issue a final order in this litigation and could only make recommended findings of fact and proposed conclusions of law. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c).

Section 157 makes the authority to enter final judgments a separate question from whether a bankruptcy court has jurisdiction over a proceeding.

In Re Resorts International, Inc. · filed 2004-06-22

Regardless, we need not resolve whether this is a "core" proceeding for subject matter jurisdictional purposes because "[w]hether a particular proceeding is core represents a question wholly separate from that of subject-matter jurisdiction." In re Marcus Hook, 943 F.2d at 266. Under 28 U.S.C. § 157, a bankruptcy court might have jurisdiction over a proceeding but still might not be able to enter final judgments and orders.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to enter final orders in a noncore proceeding with the parties’ consent only when the court independently has related-to jurisdiction.

Enterprise Bank v. Eltech, Inc. (In Re Eltech, Inc.) · filed 2004-08-02(c)(2)

The Court so concludes because § 157(c)(2) does nothing more than allow the parties to consent to a bankruptcy court’s entry of final orders and judgments in non-core proceedings over which such court independently determines that it has "related to” subject matter jurisdiction, absent which consent such court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), is free to enter only proposed, rather than final, orders and judgments which must then be ratified by the appropriate district court.

Section 157(c)(1) limits a bankruptcy court’s authority to enter final judgment in a related non-core proceeding without consent.

Desmond v. ASR Acquisition Corp. (In Re Desmond) · filed 2005-09-12(c)(1)

However, because these claims are non-core, and ASR refuses to consent to this Court’s jurisdiction, the Court may not enter a final judgment.

Section 157(c)(1) requires a bankruptcy court hearing a non-core proceeding without the parties' consent to submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court instead of entering final judgment.

In Re United Air Lines, Inc. · filed 2006-02-02(c)(1)

Based on the above, the termination proceeding filed by PBGC pursuant to Title IV of ERISA was a non-core proceeding. Because the proceeding was a non-core proceeding and the parties did not consent to the Bankruptcy Court's issuing a final judgment, the Bankruptcy Court exceeded its limited jurisdiction by issuing a final judgment instead of submitting proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court (in this instance, Judge Joan Lefkow in Civil Case 04 C 8338), as required by Section 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) requires a bankruptcy court hearing a non-core proceeding without the parties’ consent to submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court rather than enter a final judgment.

Air Line Pilots Ass'n International v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. · filed 2006-02-02(c)(1)

Because the proceeding was a non-core proceeding and the parties did not consent to the Bankruptcy Court’s issuing a final judgment, the Bankruptcy Court exceeded its limited jurisdiction by issuing a final judgment instead of submitting proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court (in this instance, Judge Joan Lefkow in Civil Case 04 C 8338), as required by Section 157(c)(1).

Section 157(b)(2) identifies categories of core bankruptcy proceedings in which a bankruptcy court may enter final judgment.

Goldberg v. Craig (In Re Hydro-Action, Inc.) · filed 2006-03-14(b)(2)

The Court has the authority to enter a final judgment in this adversary proceeding since it constitutes a core proceeding as contemplated by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E), (F), (H) and (O).

Section 157(c) permits a bankruptcy judge to enter a final order in a non-core related proceeding when the parties consent; consent may be implied when neither party objects.

Ranasinghe v. Compton (In Re Ranasinghe) · filed 2006-03-20(c)(2)

Although this court has jurisdiction to try non-core related claims, a bankruptcy judge may not enter a final judgment or order in a non-core matter except with the consent of the parties. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c). ... Where, as here, neither party has objected to this court’s entry of a dispositive order, they have impliedly consented to the court’s power to decide this case.

In a non-core proceeding related to a bankruptcy case, a bankruptcy judge cannot enter a final judgment without the parties’ consent and must submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court for de novo review.

Rydell v. Astorino (In re Baron Capital Properties, L.P.) · filed 2006-05-05(c)(1)

However, absent the consent of the parties, this Court could not render a final judgment. In non-core proceedings related to a bankruptcy case, a bankruptcy judge must submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court, which then enters a final order or judgment upon a de novo review.

Section 157(b) permits a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment on a core proceeding seeking damages for an alleged automatic-stay violation.

Merrill v. MBNA America Bank, N.A. (In Re Merrill) · filed 2006-06-16(b)

Given that Count I, seeking damages for MBNA’s alleged violations of the automatic stay, § 362(a) and (h), is a core matter, I have jurisdiction to enter final judgment on it. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157(b)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to enter a final order on a Chapter 7 dismissal motion that directly affects discharge and the creditor-debtor relationship because it is a core proceeding.

In Re Castle · filed 2006-09-11(b)(2)(J), (b)(2)(O)

As a determination of dismissal under this section directly involves the ability of a debtor to receive a discharge and directly affects the creditor-debtor relationship, this matter is a core proceeding over which this Court has the jurisdictional authority to enter final orders.

Section 157(c) permits parties to consent expressly or implicitly to a bankruptcy court entering final judgment in a non-core proceeding.

King's Grant Golf Acquisition, LLC Ex Rel. T 2 Green, LLC v. Abercrombie (In Re T 2 Green, LLC) · filed 2007-02-12(c)

While the ability of this Court to enter judgment in a non-core matter is constrained by 28 U.S.C. § 157(c), which allows this Court to submit its proposed findings to the District Court, the parties may expressly or implicitly consent to this Court hearing and entering a final judgment in a non-core matter. ... By the totality of their actions, the Mov-ants have acquiesced to the ability of this Court to hear this case and enter judgment. Therefore, to the extent that this proceeding may no longer be a core proceeding, the Court finds that the Movants have waived their right to challenge the entry of the Consent Order.

Section 157(c) requires a bankruptcy judge in a non-core proceeding without the parties’ consent and a district court referral to submit a recommendation for de novo district court review rather than enter a final order.

Williford v. Funderburk · filed 2007-03-13(c)

Thus, the bankruptcy court should have entered a report and recommendation recommending the district court grant summary judgment in favor of Appellees rather than an order granting summary judgment to Appellees. Because the district court reviewed the bankruptcy court’s order de novo as required by 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), however, we treat the bankruptcy court’s memorandum decision as a report and recommendation, and the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court as the final order adopting the bankruptcy court’s report and recommendation.

Section 157(c)(1) permits bankruptcy courts to enter interlocutory orders in non-core proceedings.

Helbling v. Josselson (In Re Almasri) · filed 2007-11-21(c)(1)

Because 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) speaks only to “final” orders or judgments, the plain language of that provision dictates that this Court has the authority to enter interlocutory orders in non-core proceedings and courts have consistently held such to be within the power of the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(b)(2) identifies specified bankruptcy matters as core proceedings in which the bankruptcy court may enter a final judgment.

Bell v. Claybrook (In Re Claybrook) · filed 2008-04-08(b)(2)(A), (I), (J), and (O)

The Court has the authority to enter a final judgment in this adversary proceeding since it constitutes a core proceeding as contemplated by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (I), (J), and (O).

Section 157(a) permits referral of bankruptcy matters to bankruptcy judges, and section 157(b) authorizes bankruptcy judges to enter final judgments in core proceedings.

In Re Harwood · filed 2009-01-30(a), (b)(2)(A), (B), (I), (J), and (K)

This Court has jurisdiction to consider the Plaintiffs' Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and 28 U.S.C. § 157(a). The Court has authority to enter a final judgment in this adversary proceeding since it constitutes a core proceeding as contemplated by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (B), (I), (J) and (K).

Section 157(c) limits a bankruptcy court’s authority to enter a final order in a non-core proceeding absent the required consent.

SFD @ Hollywood, LLC v. VCI Building, LLC (In Re SFD @ Hollywood, LLC) · filed 2009-02-19(c)

The Debtor has not moved to assume or reject the Option Agreement; indeed, the Complaint does not cite a substantive right created by bankruptcy law that is in need of adjudication. This proceeding could also exist outside of bankruptcy. Accordingly, this is a non-core proceeding in which the Court cannot enter a final order, absent consent of the district court and the parties.

Section 157(c)(1) requires the district court to consider the bankruptcy judge’s proposed findings and conclusions before entering final judgment in a non-core proceeding.

COMPAK COMPANIES, LLC v. Johnson · filed 2009-06-01(c)(1)

Because the issues raised in Counts I and II are not “core” bankruptcy matters as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b), this court must enter final judgment “after considering the bankruptcy judge’s proposed findings and conclusions.”

Section 157 treats dismissal of a bankruptcy case as a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy court may enter a final order.

In Re Kunkelman · filed 2009-09-02(b)(1), (b)(2)(J), (b)(2)(O)

Matters concerning the dismissal of a case, which affects both the ability of a debtor to receive a discharge and directly affects the creditor-debtor relationship, are core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(J)/ (O). As a core proceeding, this Court has been conferred with jurisdictional authority to enter a final order in this matter.

Section 157 identifies core bankruptcy proceedings and authorizes bankruptcy courts to enter final orders and judgments in them.

In Re Rable · filed 2011-03-04(b)(1), (b)(2)(J)/(0)

The determination of a matter such as this, concerning the dismissal of a case, which affects both the ability of a debtor to receive a discharge and directly affects the creditor-debtor relationship, is deemed to be core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(J)/(0). As such, this Court has jurisdiction to enter final orders and judgments in this matter. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

Section 157 gives bankruptcy courts jurisdiction over core proceedings arising under or in a title 11 case, including estate administration and debtor-creditor matters, and permits district courts to refer bankruptcy-related proceedings to bankruptcy judges.

Love v. Barnes Banking Corporation · filed 2011-03-15(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(A), and (b)(2)(O)

Bankruptcy courts may exercise jurisdiction over “core proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in a case under title 11.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1). Core proceedings “include, but are not limited to . . . matters concerning the administration of the estate” and “other proceedings affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate or the adjustment of the debtor-creditor or the equity security holder relationship.” § 157(b)(2)(A), (O). Further, district courts “may provide that . . . 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.” § 157(a). The District of Utah has so provided. See D. Utah Civ. R. 83-7.1. Accordingly, the Utah Bankruptcy Court has jurisdiction over all matters that are: (1) core bankruptcy proceedings; or (2) related to ongoing bankruptcy proceedings.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear a noncore proceeding but requires it to submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court for a final order.

Tyson v. Hunt (In Re Tyson) · filed 2011-06-07(c)(1)

If a matter does not “arise under” a bankruptcy case, but is only related thereto, it is what is referred to as a noncore proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c). In those instances, the bankruptcy court may hear the matter, but may not enter a final order. Instead, the bankruptcy court must submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court which then reviews the bankruptcy court’s conclusions and enters a final order. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy judge to enter final judgment on an automatic-stay damages claim arising under the Bankruptcy Code.

Turner v. First Community Credit Union · filed 2011-07-11(b)(1)

Accordingly, because the resolution of this dispute is not based on state common law, Stem is inapplicable, and this Court has the constitutional authority to enter a final judgment in this suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(a) and (b)(1).

Section 157(b)(1) permits bankruptcy judges to enter final orders in core proceedings except for counterclaims barred by Stern v. Marshall.

Tibble v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In Re Hudson) · filed 2011-08-16(b)(1)

Except for the types of counterclaims addressed in Stern v. Marshall, a bankruptcy judge remains empowered to enter final orders in all core proceedings.

When a party has not consented to final judgment in an adversary proceeding, the bankruptcy judge may submit decisions to the district court as proposed findings.

Meoli v. Huntington National Bank (In Re Teleservices Group, Inc.) · filed 2011-08-17(b)(2)

The relief will be an amendment to the April 28, 2009 pretrial order that acknowledges that Huntington has not consented to the entry of a final judgment in this adversary proceeding and that, for that reason, this court’s decisions in the matters presented to it will be submitted to the district court as a non-core matter on report and recommendation.

Section 157(b)(1) authorizes bankruptcy courts to enter final orders dismissing bankruptcy petitions because dismissal determines a core Title 11 case.

Mahanna v. Bynum · filed 2011-11-28(b)(1)

In particular, § 157(b)(1) provides a bankruptcy court can “determine” such cases, and enter “appropriate orders and judgments.” Id. Dismissal of a bankruptcy petition is a “determination” of a case under Title 11, and is equally an “appropriate” order and judgment in a Title 11 case.

Section 157(b)(2)(C) permits a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment on a counterclaim that must be resolved in deciding a creditor’s proof of claim.

BankUnited Financial Corp. v. Federal Deposit Insurance (In Re BankUnited Financial Corp.) · filed 2011-11-23(b)(2)(C)

Accordingly, I hold that I have jurisdiction to consider this dispute and I further find that I have statutory and constitutional authority to enter a final judgment in this adversary proceeding because the issue of whether the Tax Refunds are property of the estate is an issue that arises in this bankruptcy case and must be resolved by ruling on the objection to the FDIC-R’s proofs of claim.

Section 157 treats a claim objection as a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy court may enter a final order.

In Re Throgmartin · filed 2012-01-05(b)(2)(B)

This matter is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B). Accordingly, the Court may enter a final order resolving this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

Section 157(b)(2)(O) permits a bankruptcy judge to enter a final order on a contested involuntary petition as a proceeding affecting the adjustment of the debtor-creditor relationship.

In Re Murrin · filed 2012-01-04(b)(2)(O)

That case is within the district court’s jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a); the contested petition is a “civil proceeding under title 11” within the district court’s jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b); as such it is before a bankruptcy judge by reference from the district court, 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) and Loe. R. Bankr. P. (D. Minn.) 1070 — 1; and as a fundamental “proceeding affecting ... the adjustment of the debtor-creditor relationship,” a contested involuntary petition is subject to the entry of final order at the direction of a bankruptcy judge, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0).

Section 157(b)(1) permits bankruptcy judges to enter final judgments in core proceedings, including debt dischargeability proceedings.

Whited v. Galindo (In Re Galindo) · filed 2012-02-01(b)(1)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), bankruptcy judges may hear and enter final judgments in core proceedings “arising under” or “arising in” Title 11. This case on debt dischargeability is “core” to the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 157 allocates a bankruptcy judge’s authority to hear proceedings and enter final judgments; its core and non-core distinctions do not determine subject matter jurisdiction.

In Re Mpc Computers, LLC · filed 2012-02-07

Defendant's reliance on Stern is misplaced, as the jurisdictional inquiry is separate from the core/non-core inquiry that the Supreme Court considered in Stern.

Section 157 identifies certain bankruptcy matters as core proceedings and authorizes bankruptcy courts to enter final orders and judgments in them.

Graham v. Huntington National Bank (In re Medcorp. Inc.) · filed 2012-03-30(b)(1), (b)(2)(E)

This matter, as it requires the Court to make a determination concerning the validity, extent, or priority of liens in a bankruptcy case, is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E). Thus, this Court has the jurisdictional authority to enter final orders and judgments in this proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

Section 157(b)(1) authorizes a bankruptcy court to enter final orders in core proceedings.

In Re Gordon · filed 2012-03-21(b)(1), (b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(0)

Matters concerning the dismissal of a case, which affects both the ability of a debtor to receive a discharge and directly affects the creditor-debtor relationship, are core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (0). As a core proceeding, this Court possesses the jurisdictional authority to enter final orders in this matter. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear and enter final judgments in core proceedings arising under or arising in Title 11.

In Re Hernandez · filed 2012-03-19(b)(1)

As its statutory authority, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) permits this Court to hear and enter final judgments in core proceedings "arising under” or “arising in” Title 11.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) and (H) classify certain bankruptcy matters as core proceedings that the bankruptcy court may finally adjudicate.

Cadle Co. v. Brunswick Homes, LLC (In Re Moore) · filed 2012-04-23(b)(2)(E), (H)

This court declines to hold that 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E) and (H) are unconstitutional. Thus, this court finds that it has authority to enter final orders in this Adversary Proceeding, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157 allows bankruptcy courts to hear and finally decide core proceedings, including whether particular debts are dischargeable.

Deitz v. Ford (In Re Deitz) · filed 2012-04-23(b)(1), (b)(2)(I)

The bankruptcy court, in turn, may hear and determine such proceedings, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), and if the particular action involves a "core proceeding" as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2), it may enter "appropriate orders and judgments subject to [appellate] review under section 158 of [title 11]." ... We hold that, even after Stern, the bankruptcy court had the constitutional authority to enter a final judgment determining both the amount of Fords' damage claims against Deitz, and determining that those claims were excepted from discharge.

Section 157 authorizes bankruptcy courts to enter final judgments in core proceedings, subject to constitutional limits.

Ruth v. LVNV Funding, Inc. (In re Ruth) · filed 2012-04-26(b)(1)

Accordingly, because the resolution of this dispute is based on express bankruptcy law, not state law, Stem is inapplicable, and this Court has the constitutional authority to enter a final judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(a) and (b)(1).

Section 157(b)(2) identifies core bankruptcy proceedings, but constitutional due process may require an Article III judge to enter a final judgment taking property.

Moyer v. Koloseik (In Re Sutton) · filed 2012-04-27(b)(2)

To then rush in at this time and declare the bankruptcy system a “public right” seems to this court imprudent. It is better instead to tread cautiously, appreciating all along that 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) threatens the Constitution whenever it permits the taking of property through a non-Article III tribunal’s entry of a final judgment. Indeed, Stem offers at least this much guidance regarding the public rights exception — that when statutes like 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) come into conflict with the Fifth Amendment’s guaranty of due process, the presumption is in favor of the matter’s disposition through an Article III judge.

Section 157(b) treats dischargeability and lien determinations as core proceedings and authorizes a bankruptcy court to enter judgment in them.

Green v. United States (In re Green) · filed 2012-04-27(b)(1), (b)(2)(I), (b)(2)(K)

This adversary proceeding is a “core proceeding” under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I) and (K), and the Court is authorized to enter a judgment in this adversary proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

Section 157 permits bankruptcy courts to hear core proceedings and enter final judgments in matters within their constitutional authority.

Post-Confirmation Committee v. Tomball Forest, Ltd. (In re Bison Building Holdings, Inc.) · filed 2012-05-14(b)(2)(F)

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F). ... Because preferential transfer actions stem from the bankruptcy itself and can be decided through in rem jurisdiction, the Court has constitutional authority to enter a final judgment in this adversary proceeding.

Section 157(b) identifies core bankruptcy proceedings and authorizes bankruptcy courts to enter final judgments in them.

Miller v. Greenwich Capital Financial Products, Inc. (In Re American Business Financial Services, Inc.) · filed 2012-05-18(b)

Many of the counts are core and the parties have raised no objection to the Court rendering a final judgment in this proceeding on all counts.

Section 157(b)(2)(H) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear and finally decide fraudulent transfer litigation with the parties’ consent.

Holber v. M & T Bank (In Re Scheffler) · filed 2012-06-05(b)(2)(H)

Their agreement about the nature of this proceeding confirms and consents to my power to hear and finally decide this fraudulent transfer litigation pursuant to Section 157(2)(b)(H).

Section 157(b)(2) classifies this adversary proceeding as core, allowing the bankruptcy court to enter a final judgment.

Gambill v. Consumer Recovery Associates (In re Gambill) · filed 2012-06-18(b)(2)

This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2), and the Court has jurisdiction to enter a final judgment in this case.

Section 157(c) prevents a bankruptcy court from entering final judgment on non-core claims without the parties’ consent.

Fox ex rel. Perry H. Koplik & Sons, Inc. v. Koplik (In re Perry H. Koplik & Sons, Inc.) · filed 2012-07-11(c)

The great bulk of the claims asserted here are for breach of fiduciary duty under state law and are non-core. Thus, with its Article I status, this Court cannot issue a final judgment as to those non-core claims in the absence of consent.

Section 157(b)(1) gives a bankruptcy court authority to enter final judgment in this lien-priority proceeding.

Swanson v. Applied Process Technology International, LLC (In re Delta-T Corp.) · filed 2012-07-09(b)(1)

The Court concludes that it is vested with the authority to enter a final judgment in this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(1) and that the holding in Stern v. Marshall, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2594, 180 L.Ed.2d 475 (2011), does not apply to the instant matter.

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear and determine a core proceeding arising in a Chapter 9 case and enter an appropriate order.

Association of Retired Employees v. City of Stockton (In re City of Stockton) · filed 2012-08-06(b)(1)

Therefore, this entire dispute is a “core proceeding” that “arises in” this chapter 9 case that a bankruptcy judge may “hear and determine” and “enter appropriate orders and judgments” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) authorizes a bankruptcy judge to issue a final decision in a proceeding the court finds core under that provision.

Holber v. Suffolk Construction Co. (In re Red Rock Services Co.) · filed 2012-08-30(b)(2)(B)

1 therefore find that this matter is a core proceeding over which I have jurisdiction and the power to issue a final decision pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(1) authorizes a bankruptcy court to enter a final order in a core proceeding.

In re Angelo · filed 2012-09-27(b)(1)

...core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1); the bankruptcy court accordingly has authority to enter a final order on the Motion.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) and (J) identifies dischargeability and objections to discharge as core proceedings in which a bankruptcy court may enter a final order.

Joyner v. Liprie (In re Liprie) · filed 2012-09-28(b)(2)(I), (J)

This matter is a core proceeding in which this court may enter a final order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I) and (J).

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy judge to enter final judgment on referred core proceedings, including motions for relief from the automatic stay and to avoid a judicial lien.

In re Quade · filed 2012-10-10(b)(1)

A bankruptcy judge to whom a case has been referred may enter final judgment on any core proceeding arising under the Bankruptcy Code or arising in a case under title 11. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1). ... Accordingly, final judgment is within the scope of the court’s authority.

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to enter final orders on preference and fraudulent transfer avoidance claims as core proceedings.

KHI Liquidation Trust v. Wisenbaker Builder Services, Inc. (In re Kimball Hill, Inc.) · filed 2012-10-12(b)(1)

A bankruptcy judge to whom a case has been referred may enter final judgment on any core proceeding arising under the Bankruptcy Code, or arising in a case under the Bankruptcy Code. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1). ... The court agrees with the holding of Blixseth II that bankruptcy courts may hear preferential transfer and the fraudulent transfer claims and that the bankruptcy courts have the constitutional authority to enter final orders on matters such as the Avoidance Actions.

Section 157(b) permits a bankruptcy judge to enter final judgment in core proceedings, including proceedings to avoid and recover preferences and fraudulent conveyances.

Brandt v. KLC Financial, Inc. (In re Equipment Acquisition Resources, Inc.) · filed 2012-09-28(b)(1)

A bankruptcy judge to whom a ease has been referred may enter final judgment on any core proceeding arising under the Bankruptcy Code or arising in a case under title 11. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1). A proceeding to avoid and recover preferences and fraudulent conveyances arises in a case under title 11 and is specified as a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F) and (H). Accordingly, final judgment is within the scope of the court’s authority.