28 U.S.C. § 157

Section 157(b)(5) requires trial in district court of a personal injury claim underlying a dischargeability action when the prior judgment lacks preclusive effect.

Dean v. Rogers (In Re Rogers) · filed 1995-11-21(b)(5)

If the personal injury judgment does not have a preclusive effect, as occurred herein, the merits of the personal injury action must be determined prior to determining the dischargeability thereof. Accordingly, such an action must be tried in the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(5).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats a racial discrimination claim as a personal injury tort claim outside core claim liquidation proceedings.

Thomas v. Adams (In Re Gary Brew Enterprises Ltd.) · filed 1996-07-22(b)(2)(B)

The use of the term “personal injury tort” action in § 157(b)(2)(B) is the same personal injury tort involved in civil rights actions.

Section 157(b)(5) generally calls for transfer of related personal injury tort claims, but the district court may abstain from ordering transfer in the interest of justice under § 1334(c)(1).

Marks v. Outboard Marine Corp. · filed 1997-05-02(b)(5)

Although section 157(b)(5)’s use of the word “shall” appears to require the district judge with jurisdiction over the bankruptcy petition to order the appropriate transfer of all related tort cases, a second statutory provision indicates that the district judge has the discretionary authority to abstain from ordering such a transfer.

Section 157(b)(5) does not require district court trial of a claim based on alleged embezzlement because it is not a personal injury tort claim.

In Re Hollida · filed 1997-09-10(b)(5)

The Court finds that this claim of debtor’s alleged embezzlements is not a personal injury tort in nature and that the claim in question is properly within the jurisdiction of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.

Section 157(b)(5) covers personal injury tort claims even when they do not involve direct physical injury.

Leathem v. Von Volkmar (In Re Von Volkmar) · filed 1998-03-03(b)(5)

Hence, a claim which is personal injury in nature need not involve a direct physical injury. Further, simply because a certain tort is not listed under § 5/13-202 does not mean it is not personal injury in nature for purposes of § 157(b)(5).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) requires the amounts of personal injury tort claims to be fixed in another forum before the bankruptcy court determines their treatment.

Emons Industries, Inc. v. Allen (In Re Emons Industries, Inc.) · filed 1998-04-17(b)(2)(B)

However, none of those disputes are material to the proper treatment of the Subsequent DES claims in this case as the amounts of those claims must be fixed in another forum. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(5) includes intentional and negligent emotional distress claims within personal injury tort claims.

Kingsley, In re · filed 1998-06-09(b)(5)

Emotional distress, whether intentionally or negligently caused, falls within the definition of "personal injury tort" of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5).

Section 157(b)(5) requires personal injury tort claims to be tried in district court.

Irwin v. Beloit Corp. (In Re Harnischfeger Industries, Inc.) · filed 2000-02-29(b)(5)

This case is based on a personal injury and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5), neither this Court, nor the Delaware bankruptcy court, may hear a “personal injury tort” claim.

Section 157(b)(5) permits the district court to set venue for personal tort claims in the district where the bankruptcy is pending or where each claim arose.

Maritime Asbestosis Legal Clinic v. United States Lines, Inc. (In re United States Lines, Inc.) · filed 2000-06-16(b)(5)

As stated above, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5) grants a district court the power to set venue in either: (1) the district in which the bankruptcy is pending; or (2) the district in which the claims arose.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) permits a bankruptcy court to disallow a personal injury claim for missing a filing deadline without treating the disallowance as prohibited liquidation.

U.S. Lines, Inc. v. U.S. Lines Reorganization Trust · filed 2001-05-17(b)(2)(B)

Disallowance of a personal injury claim based upon late filing of a proof of claim under 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(9) is not prohibited "liquidation” of that claim per 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(4) exempts non-core proceedings to liquidate or estimate personal injury claims against a bankruptcy estate from mandatory abstention.

Beck v. Victor Equipment Co., Inc. · filed 2002-05-07(b)(4)

However, as debtor-defendants note, Congress carved out an exception to § 1334(c)(2) in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(4), which provides that “[n]on-core proceedings under section 157(b)(2)(B) of title 28, United States Code, shall not be subject to the mandatory abstention provisions of section 1334(c)(2).”

Section 157(b)(5) requires personal injury tort claims to be tried in the district where the bankruptcy case is pending or where the claim arose, as determined by the bankruptcy district court.

Stranz v. Ice Cream Liquidation, Inc. (In Re Ice Cream Liquidation, Inc.) · filed 2002-07-31(b)(5)

Accordingly, this court adopts the New York Medical Group, P.C. view and holds that this court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the relief from stay and abstention matters submitted here even if the Successor Liability Claim is a “personal injury tort claim.”

Section 157(b)(5) treats slander as a personal injury tort that a bankruptcy court cannot try or liquidate.

Rizzo v. Passialis (In Re Passialis) · filed 2003-04-15(b)(5)

Thus, Rizzo’s claim for slander falls within a “personal injury tort” under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5) that cannot be tried or liquidated by the bankruptcy court.

Section 157 permits a claim alleging that tax assessments violated the Bankruptcy Code and a prior discharge order to be brought in bankruptcy court despite the debtor’s characterization of it as a personal injury tort.

Johnson v. COMMISSIONER, IRS · filed 2003-08-19(b)(5)

In his objections, Johnson argues that this action is “a non-core case of personal injury tort and personal damages.” ... Johnson’s complaint alleges that Defendants violated various provision of the Bankruptcy Code by unlawfully assessing alleged deficiencies in income taxes against him, in violation of a prior discharge order. These allegations were properly brought in the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157(b)(5) bars a bankruptcy court from adjudicating personal injury claims, including workers’ compensation claims.

In Re Wire Rope Corp. of America, Inc. · filed 2003-10-08(b)(5)

To the extent that the Guaranty Corporation may be arguing that this Court cannot actually adjudicate the workers’ compensation claims, the Guaranty Corporation is correct. Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5), the bankruptcy court does not have jurisdiction to determine personal injury claims.

Section 157(b)(5) favors transferring bankruptcy-related personal injury actions to federal court despite artful pleading that purports to exclude personal injury claims.

In Re Twin Laboratories, Inc. · filed 2003-11-03(b)(5)

While a plaintiff may be "master of his complaint" in some contexts, palpably specious "artful pleading" of the kind presented by Parsley cannot serve to overcome (or leave to state courts to effectuate) the very strong federal policy of § 157(b)(5) favoring transfer to federal court of personal injury actions related to a bankruptcy.

Section 157(b)(5) favors transfer of bankruptcy-related personal injury claims even when state law issues predominate.

Alcantar v. Twin Laboratories Inc. (In re Twin Laboratories Inc.) · filed 2003-11-03(b)(5)

Nor, in any event, can the predominance of state law issues be given decisive effect in analyzing transfer under § 157(b)(5), for the very subject matter of that section — personal injury claims — is almost always governed by state law, and yet Congress, in enacting § 157(b)(5), singled out such claims as the very ones it wanted transferred.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) permits a bankruptcy court to estimate contingent or unliquidated personal injury or wrongful death claims for plan feasibility, but not for distribution.

In Re Hoffinger Industries, Inc. · filed 2004-01-14(b)(2)(B)

This Court may not estimate contingent or unliquidated personal injury or wrongful death claims for purposes of distribution, but may do so for purposes of determining the feasibility of a plan of reorganization. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) allows a bankruptcy court to decide a legal objection to a personal injury tort claim as a core proceeding because deciding validity does not liquidate or estimate the claim.

In Re UAL Corp. · filed 2004-06-02(b)(2)(B)

Accordingly, an objection to the legal validity of a personal injury tort claim does not fall within the personal injury exception to the core bankruptcy jurisdiction conferred by § 157(b)(2)(B), and this court may enter a final order dealing with the debtors’ pending objection to the Dorazios’ claim.

Section 157(b)(5) prevents a bankruptcy court from resolving personal injury tort claims by trial, but permits it to dispose of them as a matter of law before trial.

In Re Acr Management, LLC · filed 2005-08-26(b)(5)

If such claims constitute personal injury tort claims, then, in accordance with the UAL and G-I Holdings decisions, this Court would have at least noncore, if not core, subject matter jurisdiction to dispose of such claims as a matter of law at the pretrial stage. Consequently, if Respondents' claims constitute personal injury tort claims, then the only thing that the Court would not have subject matter jurisdiction to do, by virtue of § 157(b)(5), is to resolve such claims by way of a trial.

Section 157(b)(2)(O) excludes employment discrimination claims treated as personal injury tort claims from a bankruptcy court’s authority to hear and determine them.

Goldschmidt v. Erickson (In Re Erickson) · filed 2005-09-15(b)(2)(O)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0), a bankruptcy court may not hear and determine a personal injury tort claim. ... It follows that this court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the discrimination claim, although it has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate its dischargeability once such claim is liquidated.

Section 157(b)(5) does not treat libel claims as personal injury tort claims that must be heard by the district court.

Mitan v. Davis (In Re Davis) · filed 2005-12-07(b)(5)

After further considering the matter, aided in no small part by largely concurring post-trial briefs filed by Plaintiffs and Defendants, the Court agrees with both Plaintiffs and Defendants that libel does not constitute the kind of "personal injury tort" envisioned by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5) and that, therefore, this Court properly exercises jurisdiction over Kenneth and Frank Mitan’s libel claims.

Section 157 treats liquidation of personal injury tort claims for distribution as a non-core proceeding that the bankruptcy court cannot conduct.

In Re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Or. · filed 2006-01-17(b)(2)(B)

Because these claims are personal injury tort claims, they are non-core when being liquidated for distribution purposes.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) does not authorize a bankruptcy court to estimate personal injury tort claims for distribution by capping the fund available to pay them.

In Re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Or. · filed 2006-03-09(b)(2)(B)

This court does not have jurisdiction to estimate personal injury tort claims for purposes of distribution, which is in effect what debtor asks this court to do.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) excludes personal injury claims from liquidation by the bankruptcy court.

Century Indemnity Co. v. Special Metals Corp. (In Re Special Metals Corp.) · filed 2006-03-27(b)(2)(B)

The claims are all personal injury claims, and therefore not subject to liquidation by the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157(b)(5) allows the district court handling the bankruptcy to abstain from deciding where related personal injury and wrongful death claims will be tried.

Hopkins v. Plant Insulation Co. · filed 2006-06-13(b)(5)

In making a determination as to venue, the Court has three options. The Court may try the case in this jurisdiction, transfer the case to the district in which the claim arose, or abstain from adjudicating the issue.

Section 157(b)(5) treats claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982 as personal injury tort claims that, absent consent, the district court retains for all proceedings.

Moore v. Idealease of Wilmington · filed 2006-08-08(b)(5)

After analyzing the contrasting opinions, this court agrees with what appears to be the emerging majority view in holding that civil rights claims brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 & 1982 constitute “personal injury tort claims” under section 157. ... Because plaintiff alleges personal injury tort claims against defendants, this court retains jurisdiction over those claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5). Although some courts construe section 157(b)(5)’s use of the term “tried” to mean that a bankruptcy court may resolve pretrial motions in such actions, this court believes that (absent consent) a district court should retain control over all aspects of personal injury tort claims under section 157.

Section 157’s personal injury tort exception to mandatory abstention is limited to claims involving actual physical injury.

Massey Energy Co. v. West Virginia Consumers for Justice · filed 2006-09-26(b)(4)

After examining the statute’s text and other courts’ relevant decisions, this Court concludes that the personal injury exception under § 157 is limited to a narrow range of claims that involve an actual physical injury.

Section 157(b)(4) excludes personal injury and wrongful death claims from mandatory bankruptcy abstention.

In Re Roman Catholic Bishop of San Diego · filed 2007-08-24(b)(4)

The Court agrees it cannot send these actions back to the state court based upon abstention. In addition to the express mandate against mandatory abstention in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(4), on two occasions the Ninth Circuit has held the abstention doctrine is inapplicable if there is no parallel proceeding in the state court.

Section 157(b)(2)(B)’s exclusion for personal injury tort claims applies to claims involving physical injury, not a statutory employment discrimination claim.

In Re Sheehan Memorial Hospital · filed 2007-10-18(b)(2)(B)

By linking personal injury torts with wrongful death claims, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) and § 157(b)(5) suggest that their jurisdictional restrictions should apply only to claims that involve physical injury, as distinct from other notions of legal injury such as those that derive from the violation of a statutory duty.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) gives the bankruptcy court authority to allow or disallow claims against the estate, but excludes liquidation or estimation of contingent or unliquidated personal injury tort and wrongful death claims for distribution.

In Re SunCruz Casinos, LLC · filed 2007-10-26(b)(2)(B)

Pursuant to the express provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), the Bankruptcy Court has jurisdiction over the allowance or disal-lowance of claims against the Debtor's estate, "but not the liquidation or estimation of contingent or unliquidated personal injury tort or wrongful death claims against the estate for purposes of distribution in a case under Title 11.”

Section 157(b)(5) does not bar a bankruptcy court from deciding abstention and remand issues for a removed wrongful death claim.

Williams v. George Junior Republic (In Re Cujas) · filed 2007-10-22(b)(5)

GJR’s construction of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5) is erroneous. That provision does not bar the bankruptcy court from deciding abstention and remand issues for the type of claim removed in this case.

Section 157(b)(5) prevents a bankruptcy court from liquidating personal injury tort claims.

Tidwell v. Smith (In Re Smith) · filed 2007-12-07(b)(5)

According to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5), “The district court shall order that personal injury tort and wrongful death claims shall be tried in the district court in which the bankruptcy case is pending, or in the district in which the claim arose, as determined by the district court in which the bankruptcy is pending.” Thus, the bankruptcy court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to liquidate Plaintiffs’ state court injury tort claims.

Section 157(b)(5) requires personal injury tort and wrongful death claims in a bankruptcy case to be tried in the appropriate district court.

Grimes v. First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co. (In Re Grimes) · filed 2008-03-31(b)(5)

In this court’s view, the allegations in the complaint simply do not fall within the exception to bankruptcy court jurisdiction in § 157(b)(5).

Section 157(b)(5) places the trial of personal injury tort claims in district court; a bankruptcy court may certify those claims to district court rather than dismiss them.

King v. United States (In Re King) · filed 2008-11-03(b)(5)

Although this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Counts II and III, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5) of the Bankruptcy Code states that: ... Rather than adopt the procedure urged by the United States, namely that this Court dismiss these counts only to have the Debtors commence an action in state court, which the IRS will then remove to the United States District Court, the Court will follow the approach adopted in In re Redondo Construction Corp., 2006 WL 3898382, *3 (Bankr.D.P.R. June 29, 2006) and certify these counts to the District Court at the conclusion of its deliberations with respect to Count I.

Section 157(b)(5) includes tort claims involving invasions of personal rights even when they do not allege physical injury.

Unnamed Citizens a Thru E v. White (In Re White) · filed 2008-12-15(b)(5)

It finds more persuasive the broader view that personal injury tort claims can involve invasions of personal rights instead of limiting that phrase to include only claims which allege actual physical injury and has been impressed by the rationale of Judge Stocks, of the Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, who points out that Congress “[i]n drafting section 522(d)(11) of the Bankruptcy Code ... referred to ‘personal bodily injury’ and, presumably would have used the same language in section 157(b)(5) had it intended to limit that section to torts involving bodily injury.”

Section 157(b)(5) leaves a bankruptcy court without jurisdiction to hear a tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Laudani v. Tribeca Lending Corp. (In Re Laudani) · filed 2009-01-16(b)(5)

Additionally, as noted by the court in Nosek v. Ameriquest Mtg. Co. (In re Nosek), No. 04-4517, 2006 WL 1867096 (Bankr.D. Mass. June 20, 2006), this Court is without jurisdiction to hear a tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Section 157(b)(5) requires a district court judge, rather than a bankruptcy judge, to set the venue for a personal-injury claim related to a bankruptcy.

Podkolzin v. Amboy Bus Co., Inc. · filed 2009-03-13(b)(5)

Under Section 157(b)(5), a bankruptcy judge does not have the authority to set the venue for where the case will be tried; a district court judge must set the venue.

Section 157(b)(5) requires personal injury tort claims to be tried in district court, including claims for emotional distress damages.

Lentz v. Bureau of Medical Economics (In Re Lentz) · filed 2009-06-04(b)(5)

Personal injury matters are not subject to the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction. ... Specifically, the statute provides in relevant part that “personal injury tort claims shall be tried in the district court in which the bankruptcy case is pending or in the district in which the claim arosef.]” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5). Consequently, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Count II is hereby dismissed.

Section 157(b)(5) does not prevent a bankruptcy court from deciding pretrial matters, including a motion to dismiss, in a personal injury tort claim that must be tried in district court.

Nilsen v. Neilson (In Re Cedar Funding, Inc.) · filed 2009-11-16(b)(5)

Consistent with Healthcentral.com, we hold that any statutory constraint on the court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5) does not extend to pre-trial matters.

Section 157(b)(5) prevents a bankruptcy court from liquidating an unliquidated personal injury claim, but permits it to decide whether the claim is dischargeable.

Hermosilla v. Hermosilla (In Re Hermosilla) · filed 2010-05-26(b)(5)

Although I lack jurisdiction to liquidate Cristina’s unliquidated personal injury claim, see 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5), I may nonetheless determine whether it would survive the Debt- or's discharge in bankruptcy if Cristina successfully proved that her claim was for a willful and malicious injury.

Section 157(b)(5) requires personal injury tort claims tried in federal court to be tried in district court rather than bankruptcy court.

Dorris v. Chacon (In Re Chacon) · filed 2010-10-01(b)(5)

Second, if a federal court is to determine liability and damages on these sexual assault claims (as opposed to the sóle issue of dischargeability), the adjudication must be by the United States District Court rather than this Court.

Section 157 reserves determination of damages in a tort lawsuit to the district court, rather than the bankruptcy court.

Father M v. Various Tort (In re Roman Catholic Archbishop) · filed 2011-09-21(b)(1), (b)(5)

A bankruptcy court is not, however, authorized to determine the amount of damages awarded in a tort lawsuit; that duty is entrusted only to the district court.

Section 157(b)(5) requires a defamation claim to be tried in district court when the parties have not consented to trial in bankruptcy court.

Yellow Sign, Inc. v. Freeway Foods, Inc. (In Re Freeway Foods of Greensboro, Inc.) · filed 2012-01-13(b)(5)

Since the Flys and the Fly Trusts have not consented to this Court’s authority to finally resolve the defamation claim against them, under the plain language of Section 157(b)(5) any trial of the claim against them must proceed in the district court.

Section 157(b)(5)'s personal injury exception does not cover objections to the legal validity of a personal injury tort claim.

In Re Archdiocese of Milwaukee · filed 2012-02-24(b)(5)

Furthermore, an objection to the legal validity of a personal injury tort claim, such as the Objections made here, does not fall within the personal injury exception to the core jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157(b)(5) does not prevent a bankruptcy court from deciding an objection to the legal validity of a personal injury tort claim.

In re Archdiocese of Milwaukee · filed 2013-01-31(b)(5)

Further, an objection to the legal validity of a personal injury tort claim, such as the Debtor’s statute of limitations objection in this case, does not fall within the personal injury exception to the core jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) covers personal injury and wrongful death claims against nondebtor third parties for contribution or indemnification under the exception to mandatory abstention.

In re New England Compounding Pharmacy, Inc. Products Liability Litigation · filed 2013-06-12(b)(2)(B)

Section 157(b)(2) (B), therefore, provides an exception from mandatory abstention for personal injury and wrongful death claims against nondebtor third-parties for contribution or indemnification.

Section 157(b)(5) requires personal injury tort claims in a bankruptcy case to be tried in district court.

Barber v. Arnott (In re Arnott) · filed 2014-07-11(b)(5)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5), the final adjudication of these claims must be left to the district court.

Section 157(b) includes employment discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII, the Americans with Disability Act, and the Kentucky Civil Rights Act within its personal injury tort category.

In re Mason · filed 2014-08-07(b)

Therefore, for all the reasons stated herein, the term “personal injury tort” as used in § 157(b) includes the civil rights claims brought by Lee and Perry pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disability Act of 1990, and the Kentucky Civil Rights Act.

Section 157(b)(5) calls for a contextual assessment of whether an emotional distress claim is a personal injury tort that must be tried in district court absent consent.

In re Residential Capital, LLC · filed 2015-09-04(b)(5)

The Court concludes that the hybrid approach is most appropriately applied in determining whether the Claimants’ IIED Claim is a personal injury tort under section 157(b)(5). In this contested matter, however, whether the hybrid or narrow approach is followed, the result would be the same — the Claimants’ IIED Claim is not a personal injury tort.

Section 157(b)(5) is nonjurisdictional and does not prevent a bankruptcy court from deciding whether an already liquidated personal injury debt is dischargeable.

Pausch v. DiPiero (In re DiPiero) · filed 2016-07-05(b)(5)

Because section 157(b)(5) is not jurisdictional, and because it does not apply here in any event, DiPiero’s first defense will be stricken.

Section 157(b)(2)(B)’s personal injury tort exception does not exclude a corporation’s claim for damage to its business from the bankruptcy court’s core jurisdiction.

Art Pack, Inc. v. Gottlieb · filed 2017-07-05(b)(2)(B)

Nor is Art Pack’s proof of claim a “personal injury tort” claim falling outside the bankruptcy court’s statutory core jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B). We need not parse the meaning of “personal injury tort” in any detail because, even if malicious prosecution may in some instances constitute a “personal injury tort,” Art Pack is a corporation and thus may only recover for damage to its business.

Section 157(b)(4) treats claims for emotional harm as personal injury tort claims under the middle approach, excluding them from mandatory abstention.

Abraham v. Smith · filed 2016-03-07(b)(4)

Utilizing the middle approach, the Court finds that under § 157, Abraham’s complaint alleges a personal injury tort because Abraham seeks to recover for emotional harm.

Section 157(b)(5) places adjudication of personal injury claims outside the bankruptcy court.

In re John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC · filed 2018-11-30(b)(5)

Allowing the Missouri action to proceed will completely resolve the issue of liability on the Andersons' personal injury claims, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court (factor 1);... and judgment in favor of the Andersons would not be subject to equitable subordination or result in an avoidable judicial lien (factors 8 and 9).

Section 157(b)(5) limits a bankruptcy court to deciding whether a personal injury debt is nondischargeable, leaving liquidation of the injury claim to another court.

Markut v. Micic · filed 2019-11-14(b)(5)

Given the limitations on the bankruptcy court's subject matter jurisdiction that prohibit the bankruptcy court from liquidating Plaintiff's state law personal injury tort claims, the evidence presented in this adversary is to be limited to the determination of a debt and whether that debt occurred by a willful and malicious injury.

Section 157(b)(5) allocates authority over personal injury tort claims between district and bankruptcy courts; its limits are not jurisdictional and remain applicable before a final adjudication on the merits.

Spears v. Hays · filed 2020-09-16(b)(5)

Since § 157(b)(5) pertains only to the proper allocation of judicial power between the district court and the bankruptcy court and is not jurisdictional, Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462, 479 (2011), and since no final adjudication on the merits has been made, the limitations imposed by § 157(b)(5) and the District Court's Standing Order of Reference remain intact.

Section 157(b)(5) requires personal injury tort claims to be tried in district court when the parties have not consented to bankruptcy court adjudication.

Garcia v. Sklar · filed 2021-04-20(b)(5)

The District Court Complaint asserts claims against the Defendant for sexual harassment, assault and battery, and gender-motivated violence, to which section 157(b)(5) applies. ... As the consent “of all parties to the proceeding” must be given for the claims to be adjudicated in the bankruptcy court, and neither party has consented (and one has expressly refused), the claims must be adjudicated by the District Court rather than the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(b)(5) requires personal injury tort claims to be tried in district court when the parties have not consented to bankruptcy court adjudication.

Nosson Sklar · filed 2021-04-20(b)(5)

The District Court Complaint asserts claims against the Defendant for sexual harassment, assault and battery, and gender-motivated violence, to which section 157(b)(5) applies. ... As the consent “of all parties to the proceeding” must be given for the claims to be adjudicated in the bankruptcy court, and neither party has consented (and one has expressly refused), the claims must be adjudicated by the District Court rather than the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(b)(5) prevents a bankruptcy court from liquidating personal injury claims.

Zeigler v. Delph · filed 2021-06-07(b)(5)

The Court advised the parties that the relief sought by the Plaintiffs in Count III of the Complaint constituted a personal injury claim under Virginia law, which the Court does not have jurisdiction to liquidate under 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) bars liquidation or estimation of contingent or unliquidated personal injury tort claims for distribution in a Chapter 7 case.

The Nash Engineering Company · filed 2022-05-25(b)(2)(B)

Section 157(b)(2)(B) clearly provides that contingent or unliquidated personal injury tort claims cannot be liquidated or estimated for purposes of distribution in any bankruptcy case, including a Chapter 7 case.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) excludes liquidation or estimation of certain personal injury and wrongful death claims from core proceedings, but that limit alone does not justify dismissing a bankruptcy case.

In Re: Nash Engineering Co · filed 2022-08-05(b)(2)(B)

As to the Bankruptcy Court’s 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) argument, the plain language of the statute does exclude “the liquidation or estimation of contingent or unliquidated personal injury tort or wrongful death claims against the estate for purposes of distribution” from the core proceedings that bankruptcy courts “may hear.” ... But 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) alone also is not a basis for dismissing the case at this stage of the proceeding.

Section 157 prevents a bankruptcy judge from liquidating personal injury tort claims against a debtor absent waiver.

Parker v. Miller (In re Miller) · filed 2018-07-30(b)(5)

Accordingly, despite the jurisdiction granted to bankruptcy courts under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), the statute precludes a bankruptcy judge, absent waiver, from liquidating personal injury tort claims against a debtor.

Section 157(b)(5) permits a bankruptcy court to summarily dispose of a personal injury tort claim that has no basis in law, even though trial of the claim belongs in district court.

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre, Ne · filed 2023-04-19(b)(5)

Thus, there is no such proscription for summarily disposing of claims which have no basis in law, on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) or a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56.

Section 157(b)(5) requires personal injury tort claims to be tried in district court but permits referral to the bankruptcy court for pretrial matters.

Trahant v. Mintz · filed 2023-08-15(b)(5)

Finally, plaintiffs argue that it was erroneous for the Court to refer the action based on 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5) and Local Rule 83.4.1, which require “personal injury tort and wrongful death claims” to be tried in the district court. But their argument is belied by those very authorities, which only require that personal injury tort claims be tried in the district court, not that the district court handle all pretrial matters.

Section 157(b)(4)’s exception to mandatory abstention applies to personal injury or wrongful death claims against the bankruptcy estate, not claims solely against nondebtors.

ARK456 Doe v. St. Francis of Assisi · filed 2023-08-17(b)(4)

The Court rejects Defendants’ argument to the contrary, based on 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(4), which provides that “[n]on-core proceedings under section 157(b)(2)(B) of title 28, United States Code, shall not be subject to the mandatory abstention provisions of section 1334(c)(2).” The subsection referenced in that provision applies only to “the liquidation or estimation of contingent or unliquidated personal injury tort or wrongful death claims against the estate.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) (emphasis added). Since Plaintiffs have asserted claims solely against non-debtors, this exception to mandatory abstention does not apply.

Section 157(b)(4)’s exception to mandatory abstention does not apply to personal injury claims asserted solely against nondebtors.

Scaringi v. St. Joseph Roman Catholic Church · filed 2023-08-17(b)(4)

The Court rejects Defendants’ argument to the contrary, based on 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(4), which provides that “[n]on-core proceedings under section 157(b)(2)(B) of title 28, United States Code, shall not be subject to the mandatory abstention provisions of section 1334(c)(2).” The subsection referenced in that provision applies only to “the liquidation or estimation of contingent or unliquidated personal injury tort or wrongful death claims against the estate.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) (emphasis added). Since Plaintiffs have asserted claims solely against non-debtors, this exception to mandatory abstention does not apply.

Section 157(b)(4)’s exception to mandatory abstention applies to covered personal injury or wrongful death claims against the bankruptcy estate, but not claims solely against non-debtors.

R.M. v. Saint Martha Roman Catholic Church · filed 2023-08-17(b)(4)

The Court rejects Defendants’ argument to the contrary, based on 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(4), which provides that “[n]on-core proceedings under section 157(b)(2)(B) of title 28, United States Code, shall not be subject to the mandatory abstention provisions of section 1334(c)(2).” The subsection referenced in that provision applies only to “the liquidation or estimation of contingent or unliquidated personal injury tort or wrongful death claims against the estate.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) (emphasis added). Since Plaintiffs have asserted claims solely against non-debtors, this exception to mandatory abstention does not apply.

Section 157(b)(4)’s exception to mandatory abstention for personal injury claims applies only to claims against the bankruptcy estate.

ARK514 Doe v. St. John the Baptist · filed 2023-09-05(b)(4)

The bankruptcy judge has already determined that these lawsuits are not claims against the Diocese’s estate and that the defendants do not have a viable claim for indemnification against the Diocese, so the exception does not apply.

Section 157(b)(4)’s exception to mandatory abstention applies only to the liquidation or estimation of personal injury or wrongful death claims against the bankruptcy estate.

O'Connor v. Saints Cyril and Methodius Roman Catholic Church · filed 2023-09-05(b)(4)

The defendants’ argument that their cases fall under the exception to mandatory abstention in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(4) is not convincing. ... The bankruptcy judge has already determined that these lawsuits are not claims against the Diocese’s estate and that the defendants do not have a viable claim for indemnification against the Diocese, so the exception does not apply.

Section 157(b)(5) requires district court trial of personal injury tort claims but does not require withdrawal of the reference before the bankruptcy court rules on a motion to dismiss.

Collum v. City of Chicago, Illinois · filed 2023-09-19(b)(5)

Even if Collum’s § 1983 claim constitutes a personal injury tort for which § 157(b)(5) mandates withdrawal of the reference, the Court need not do so in advance of the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling on the City’s motion to dismiss; § 157(b)(5) concerns trial.

Section 157 places the liquidation or estimation of a personal injury tort claim for distribution in the district court, absent the parties’ consent.

Berrios v. Reyes · filed 2024-12-17(b)(2)(B), (b)(5)

Further, as the claim appears to involve a personal injury tort, absent consent by the parties, 9 a proceeding to determine (or estimate) the claim for purposes of distribution would need to take place in the district court, rather than the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(b)(5) requires personal injury tort claims tried in federal court to be tried in the district court rather than the bankruptcy court.

Ruby Evans by and through her Successor in Interest v. Windsor Vallejo Care Center, LLC · filed 2025-02-20(b)(5)

This Court finds that remand is proper based on: (1) the equities and (2) the substance of the matters to be litigated. Additionally, that seeking to have this matter removed to this Bankruptcy Court, and not having sought to have this matter transferred (by withdrawal of the reference) to the District Court is in violation of the jurisdictional provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5) and 28 U.S.C. § 1334.

Section 157(b)(5) requires personal injury tort claims to be tried in district court, so a bankruptcy court cannot decide an emotional distress counterclaim.

Tower Credit, Inc. v. Smith · filed 2025-05-30(b)(5)

28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5) provides that “[t]he district court shall order that personal injury tort and wrongful death claims shall be tried in the district court in which the bankruptcy case is pending, or in the district court in the district in which the claim arose, as determined by the district court in which the bankruptcy case is pending.” This court lacks the power to decide Ms. Smith’s counterclaim for emotional distress.

Section 157(b)(5) calls for personal injury tort claims to be tried in district court when the parties have not consented to a final judgment by the bankruptcy court.

Yagi v. Hilgartner · filed 2025-08-06(b)(5)

Bankruptcy Judge Kenney appropriately issued a Report and Recommendation based on Section 157(b)(5) and the lack of consent by the parties to a final judgment by the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157(b)(5) requires district courts to try personal injury tort claims, including assault and battery claims alleging physical injury.

Arrieta v. Smith · filed 2025-10-17(b)(5)

The question is not academic, since subsection 157(b)(5) provides that the district court – and not the bankruptcy court – shall try “personal injury tort” claims. ... Even under the “narrowest” test for determining whether a claim is for a “personal injury tort,” assault and battery clearly constitute personal injury torts.

Section 157(b)(5) is procedural, so parties may consent to a bankruptcy court adjudicating a personal injury tort claim.

Patterson · filed 2026-03-20(b)(5)

However, the Supreme Court in Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462,479-80, 131 S.Ct. 2594 (2011), clarified that § 157(b)(5) is procedural rather than jurisdictional, meaning its requirements can be waived by the parties. Thus, if parties consent, a bankruptcy court may adjudicate a defamation claim.

Section 157(b)(5) requires a proceeding to liquidate a personal injury tort claim to be tried in district court, even if the parties consent to bankruptcy court adjudication.

Francisco Javier Espaillat · filed 2026-04-24(b)(5)

When the non- core proceeding is to liquidate or estimate a contingent or unliquidated personal injury tort claim, however, the bankruptcy judge may not hear and determine the ... matter, even if the parties consent. Rather, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5) requires that the claim be tried in the District Court.

Section 157(b)(4) makes mandatory abstention inapplicable to personal injury claims, but does not prevent discretionary abstention under § 1334(c)(1).

In Re Pacific Gas & Electric Co. · filed 2002-01-08(b)(4)

Even though section 157(b)(4) provides that mandatory abstention is inapplicable to personal injury claims, courts nevertheless have held that such claims may be subject to discretionary abstention under section 1334(c)(1).

Section 157(b)(5) narrowly defines personal injury tort claims and does not include defamation claims.

Byrnes v. Byrnes · filed 2022-03-11(b)(5)

Under the narrow interpretation, defamation claims are not personal injury torts.

Section 157 did not govern a proceeding based on a bankruptcy petition filed before its July 10, 1984 effective date.

C.B.C. Construction Co. v. Capozziello (In Re Capozziello) · filed 1985-12-20

Since, however, 28 U.S.C. § 157 was not effective until July 10, 1984 and the petition in this case was filed prior to that date, the jurisdiction of this court in this proceeding rests upon the Emergency Resolution For The Administration of Bankruptcy System (“Emergency Resolution”), adopted by the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, effective December 25, 1982.

Section 157(c) permits a district court to decide a collateral attorneys’ fee request after judgment even when the bankruptcy court did not address it in its report and recommendation.

Charter Crude Oil Co. v. Exxon Co., U.S.A. (In re Charter Co.) · filed 1989-07-18(c)

Whether or not a collateral matter such as attorneys’ fees should be considered by the bankruptcy court in the first instance or by this Court after judgment has been entered, is a question that the courts may address on a case by case basis. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c) does not preclude such a practice.

Section 157(a) does not permit referral of a dispute as “related to” a bankruptcy case when the property has left the estate and resolving the dispute would not affect the estate or creditor distributions.

In the Matter of Fedpak Systems, Incorporated, Debtor-Appellant · filed 1996-04-01(a)

We hold that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to issue the clarification order because (1) FedPak did not have the constitutionally-required standing to seek the order, and (2) the order sought by FedPak did not fall within the scope of the bankruptcy court’s “related to” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(a) and 1334(b).

Section 157(c) does not cover a lien dispute over transferred property when its resolution will not affect administration of the bankruptcy estate or distributions to creditors.

Golden Guernsey Dairy Co-Op v. Edwards (In Re Edwards) · filed 1989-09-28(c)(1)

The issues raised in Plaintiff’s Complaint do not address or affect the administration of the bankruptcy estate. As stated earlier, the proceeds of the sale were effectively abandoned by the Trustee and will not, in any way, affect the distribution to creditors. The real estate, being already transferred, will similarly not be connected with the administration of the estate. Hence, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not constitute a “related to” proceeding pursuant to Section 157(c).

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy judge to hear a referred adversary proceeding involving a foreign state when it relates to a Title 11 case.

Bedford Computer Corp. v. Israel Aircraft Industries, Ltd. (In Re Bedford Computer Corp.) · filed 1990-02-15

Both 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) and 28 U.S.C. 157 allow a federal court to decide matters “relating to” a Title 11 case. I believe an adversary proceeding implicating the FSIA is related to Title 11 as long as the underlying transaction is clearly a matter arising under Title 11.

Section 157(a) allows a district court to refer proceedings related to a Title 11 case to a bankruptcy judge, including non-core proceedings.

Sonnyco Coal, Inc. v. Bartley (In Re Sonnyco Coal, Inc.) · filed 1990-06-26(a)

The Bankruptcy Court was proper in having earlier established that the non-core proceeding in this matter is “related to” a case filed under Title 11, and this Court finds that subject matter jurisdiction exists under the statute.

Section 157(c) covers noncore state-law claims whose resolution could affect property available to the bankruptcy estate.

Altchek v. Altchek (In Re Altchek) · filed 1990-09-27(c)

The debtor’s state-law causes of action for indemnification and the collection of accounts receivable are not core matters because they do not invoke a substantive right provided by title 11 and are not central to the bankruptcy court’s function in administering the estate of the debtor. A resolution of the debtor’s state-law causes of action would affect the amount of property available for distribution to the creditors and should be classified as “otherwise” related to a case under title 11 within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(c).

Section 157(c)(1) covers a non-core proceeding related to bankruptcy when its outcome could conceivably affect the bankruptcy estate.

In Re S & S 31 Flavors, Inc. · filed 1990-09-05(c)(1)

Under Section 157(c), a proceeding is “related to” a bankruptcy proceeding when the outcome of that proceeding could conceivably have an effect on the estate being administered in bankruptcy. ... The assertion of the claim against the principals of the Debtor will clearly not have any effect on the Administration of the Debtor’s Estate.

Section 157(a) permits referral of a guaranty action against a nondebtor when the debtor’s indemnity obligation could affect the bankruptcy estate.

Apex Investment Associates, Inc. v. TJX Companies, Inc. · filed 1990-12-06(a)

Applying the “relatedness” standard set forth by the Seventh Circuit in Xonics, this court agrees with TJX that the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to hear this dispute. Apex’s claim against TJX is clearly “related to” Ames’ efforts at reorganization. If Apex is successful in enforcing the guaranty agreement against TJX, then TJX will simply seek indemnification from Ames, the debtor. By virtue of its agreement to indemnify TJX, Ames will have less assets available to satisfy the claims of other creditors — a result which unquestionably impacts upon the administration of the Ames’ estate.

Section 157(c)(1) covers proceedings whose outcome might affect bankruptcy administration; an effectively abandoned claim is no longer related to the bankruptcy proceeding.

Tschirn v. Secor Bank · filed 1991-01-04(c)(1)

In this case, since the parties are non-diverse, removal was proper only if Tschirn’s lender liability suit was “related to” Tschirn’s bankruptcy proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). A case is “related to” a bankruptcy proceeding if the result of the case might possibly affect the bankruptcy administration. ... Hence, Tschirn’s lender liability suit is not part of his bankruptcy estate and is therefore not “related to” his bankruptcy proceedings.

Section 157(a) permits a general reference order requiring proceedings related to a title 11 case to be referred to the bankruptcy court.

Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Evergreen International Airlines, Inc. · filed 1991-09-10(a)

The actions are therefore related to a case under title 11, and must be referred to the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer a matter related to a Chapter 11 proceeding to bankruptcy judges; an indemnification agreement can establish that relationship.

Krafchick v. Zayre of East Providence, Inc. · filed 1991-09-18(a)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), the district court may refer to the bankruptcy judges of the district any cases arising under or related to the case under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.).

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear a proceeding related to a bankruptcy case even when it is not a core proceeding.

Rheem Manufacturing Co. v. Cheatham · filed 1991-09-24(c)(1)

This Court does find that this claim, though not a core proceeding, “is otherwise related” to a case under title 11. An otherwise related proceeding, as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), may be referred to the bankruptcy judge for hearing.

Section 157(c)(1) covers noncore proceedings related to a bankruptcy case, including an eviction action whose outcome could affect implementation of a Chapter 11 plan.

Rednel Tower, Ltd. v. Riverside Nursing Home (In Re Riverside Nursing Home) · filed 1992-09-03(c)(1)

Under this test, the eviction action pending before this court is related to Riverside’s bankruptcy case. The outcome of the proceeding may affect the administration of the estate in bankruptcy. The ouster of Riverside from the nursing home could possibly have an impact upon the implementation of Riverside’s Chapter 11 plan which requires that Riverside transfer the facility to a voluntary receiver. The determination of the eviction action may also affect Riverside’s right to possess and occupy the nursing home until a voluntary receiver is appointed in accordance with the plan. Because the eviction action is related to a bankruptcy case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 157(c), this court has subject matter jurisdiction over the proceeding.

Section 157(c)(1) does not permit a bankruptcy court to hear a noncore suit between third parties merely because its outcome might lead to an indemnification claim against the debtor.

Foley Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (In Re S & M Constructors, Inc.) · filed 1992-09-08(c)(1)

A judgment against Aetna will not necessarily be dispositive of any defenses which S & M may have against Aetna’s possible indemnification claims. Accordingly, as in Coopers & Lyb-rand, supra, Foley’s action against Aetna is not a “non-core proceeding related to a case under title 11.”

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear a related proceeding, but claims unrelated to the bankruptcy case fall outside that authority.

Lux v. County of Spotsylvania Board of Supervisors (In Re Lux) · filed 1992-10-27(c)(1)

Jurisdiction may exist if the issues are otherwise related to a case under title 11 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). ... Accordingly, I find that the motions to dismiss should be granted because this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the debtors’ allegations; the claims brought by the debtors are non-core and unrelated to this bankruptcy case.

Section 157(c)(1) covers a noncore claim whose outcome could indirectly affect a counterclaim against the debtor.

Seven Springs, Inc. v. Abramson (In Re Seven Springs, Inc.) · filed 1992-11-20(c)(1)

Although Abramson’s cross claim is not a core proceeding I believe it qualifies as a “related to” proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). ... Accordingly, this court believes it has “non-core, but related to” jurisdiction over Abramson’s cross claim and part three of the mandatory abstention test is satisfied.

Section 157(c)(1) requires a bankruptcy judge to issue proposed findings and conclusions on a related, noncore state-law claim.

Sender v. Buchanan (In Re Hedged-Investments Associates, Inc.) · filed 1994-02-02(c)(1)

The issues involved are all pure state law issues, and the matter would not be before this Court absent the pending bankruptcy. Therefore, any findings and conclusions of this Court on the Plaintiffs claims under CULPA will be “proposed” findings and conclusions under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear a related proceeding that affects the property available for distribution to creditors or its allocation among them.

National Tax Credit Partners, L.P., and National Tax Credit, Inc. v. Edward F. Havlik, Virgil W. Owings, and United Deve · filed 1994-03-28(c)

For the reasons we have canvassed in concluding that enforcement of the partners’ promise belongs in the bankruptcy court, this controversy is “related to a case under chapter 11” and so comes within federal jurisdiction. Section 157(c) authorizes a federal court to resolve a dispute that “affects the amount of property available for distribution [to creditors] or the allocation of property among creditors.”

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer proceedings related to a Title 11 case to its bankruptcy judges.

Federal Insurance Co. v. Sheldon · filed 1994-04-04(a)

Thus, whether a matter can be referred to a bankruptcy judge under Section 157(a) and whether the matter is within the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court involve the same inquiry: core proceedings and non-core proceedings that are related to title 11 proceedings are within the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court and can be referred to the bankruptcy judge. ... The Trustee’s causes of action are therefore related to the liquidation, a case under title 11, and must be referred to the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear a noncore proceeding related to a Title 11 case.

Plum Run Service Corp. v. United States Department of Navy (In Re Plum Run Service Corp.) · filed 1994-04-05(c)(1)

Without question, if this is not a “core proceeding”, it is “otherwise related to a case under title 11,” thus providing the Bankruptcy Court with jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) as set forth below.

An action to enforce a guaranty related to a debtor’s bankruptcy may be referred to the bankruptcy court under § 157(a).

Industri & Skipsbanken A/S v. Levy · filed 1995-06-19(a)

The most compelling reason to transfer this action to the Southern District of Texas is for a subsequent transfer by the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) to the Bankruptcy Court. This is a “related proceeding” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), requiring that the case be transferred to the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to hear a noncore proceeding related to a bankruptcy case when the proceeding could realize value for the estate.

Luker v. Reeves (In re Reeves) · filed 1995-08-28(c)(1)

We conclude that the trustee’s action to liquidate a close corporation in order to realize the value of the estate’s shares is “related to” the underlying bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court has jurisdiction over this claim.

Section 157(c)(1) requires a proceeding to affect property available for distribution or its allocation among creditors to be related to a bankruptcy case.

Miller v. Conte (In Re Import & Mini Car Parts, Ltd.) · filed 1996-04-09(c)(1)

“There is jurisdiction under § 157(c)(1) only when the dispute is ‘related to’ the bankruptcy — meaning that it affects the amount of property available for distribution or the allocation of property among creditors.”

Section 157(a) permits referral of a suit against a bankruptcy trustee and the trustee’s surety over actions to protect estate assets as a matter related to a title 11 case.

M.A. Baheth & Co. v. Schott · filed 1997-08-08(a)

Baheth's suit seeking damages from a trustee and the surety on the bond for the trustee's actions in obtaining an injunction to prohibit Baheth from disposing of the assets of the estate constituted, at the very least, a matter "related to a case under title 11" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(a).

A debtor’s motion for release from incarceration that began before the bankruptcy petition is a proceeding related to a case under title 11.

Cornelious v. Bishop (Cornelious) · filed 1997-09-09(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.”

Section 157(a) permits referral to bankruptcy judges of proceedings related to a Chapter 11 case, including a post-confirmation fee request that could affect administration of the estate.

United States Trustee v. Kroy (Europe) Ltd. (In Re Kroy (Europe) Ltd.) · filed 1998-04-15(a)

Section 157(a) states that “[e]ach district court may provide that any or all cases under title 11 and any or all proceedings arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11 shall be referred to the bankruptcy judges for the district.” 28 U.S.C. § 157. Thus, to determine if the Bankruptcy Court has jurisdiction over the United States Trustee’s request for fees, the Court must determine whether at a minimum the request is “related” to a case under title 11. ... Accordingly, the Bankruptcy Court does have jurisdiction to consider the United States Trustee’s request for fees.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear proceedings related to a bankruptcy case because of their nexus to the debtor’s case.

In Re Shar · filed 1999-04-12(c)(1)

This is particularly true of adversary proceedings which are "related” to the bankruptcy case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), since the related proceeding can only be heard by a bankruptcy court because of its nexus to the debtor's bankruptcy case.

Section 157 does not support bankruptcy court jurisdiction over garnishment of a debtor’s post-petition wages when the proceeding is neither core nor related to administration of the bankruptcy estate.

In Re Miller · filed 2000-01-24

Upon determining this proceeding is not a core proceeding and is not a proceeding that is otherwise related to a case under Title 11 as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 157, this Court chooses not to exercise jurisdiction over this garnishment proceeding.

Section 157 permits bankruptcy judges to decide core proceedings and hear related non-core proceedings; a claim arising after dismissal that cannot affect the estate falls into neither category.

Hanno v. TCF National Bank (In Re Hanno) · filed 2000-11-01

Neither core nor related jurisdiction lies here for matters occurring after dismissal.

Section 157 distinguishes core proceedings from proceedings related to a bankruptcy case; claims with no effect on estate administration fall into neither category.

Xytest Corp. v. Mitchell (In Re Mitchell) · filed 2000-11-15

Accordingly, the Counts set forth above are neither “core” nor “related to” the Debtors’ Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, and the Court lacks jurisdiction over these Counts.

Section 157(a) does not cover counterclaims on rejected contracts when those claims cannot affect the bankruptcy estate.

Green v. LifeUSA Insurance · filed 2001-02-20(a)

This court agrees. The policy and the rider are not part of the estate because the trustee rejected them, and claims on them cannot be considered to affect the estate. Thus, the bankruptcy court correctly dismissed Green’s counterclaims without prejudice, allowing Green to bring such claims before a court with proper jurisdiction.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear a related proceeding when its outcome could conceivably affect the bankruptcy estate.

McCloy v. Silverthorne (In Re McCloy) · filed 2002-07-12(c)(1)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), a bankrupt cy court may hear proceedings that are related to the bankruptcy proceeding. ... The bankruptcy court therefore had jurisdiction over proceedings involving Section 20, as a determination as to Section 20 clearly would have an effect on the assets of the bankruptcy estate.

In related proceedings, § 157(c)(1) limits bankruptcy judges to proposed findings and conclusions, with the district court entering final judgment after de novo review.

Smith v. Elzey (In Re Smith) · filed 2002-07-18(c)(1)

In cases of related jurisdiction, bankruptcy judges may only enter recommended conclusions of law and findings of fact which are subject to de novo review by the district court which enters final judgment.

Section 157(a) limits a bankruptcy court’s power to reserve jurisdiction to its authority to exercise related-to jurisdiction.

Cytomedix, Inc. v. Perfusion Partners & Associates, Inc. · filed 2003-02-03(a)

But a bankruptcy court’s power to reserve jurisdiction over controversies involving the debtor or the property of the bankruptcy estate is no broader than its power to exercise “related to” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a).

Section 157 does not make a third party’s claim related to a bankruptcy case merely because the estate is entitled to a share of any recovery.

Ilardo v. Al's Diesel, Inc. (In Re World Parts, LLC) · filed 2005-02-18

As agreed by stipulation, the trustee may then receive twelve percent of that recovery. The trustee, however, lacks standing in his own name to assert a claim against Al’s Diesel and Pacific Detroit. In the view of this court, the rights of ITEC and Watson are not related to a case under title 11, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157. Accordingly, the trustee may not invoke the jurisdiction of this court to obtain a turnover of property from Al’s Diesel and Pacific Detroit.

Section 157 does not permit a bankruptcy court to hear a proceeding over abandoned claims when its outcome cannot conceivably affect the bankruptcy estate.

Dircks v. Global Financial Credit, L.L.C. (In re Dircks) · filed 2005-08-15(c)(1)

However, an examination of the Plaintiff-debtors’ Chapter 7 case and Complaint, as well as the Agreement in question, reveals that the proceeding in issue is not “related to” and will have no conceivable effect on the Plaintiff-debtors’ bankruptcy estate.

Section 157(a) permits referral to a bankruptcy court when a proceeding is sufficiently related to a bankruptcy case because its outcome could affect the estate.

Vieira X Rel. the Estate of Worldwide Wholesale Lumber, Inc. v. AGM, II, LLC · filed 2007-01-22(a)

Accordingly, this court finds Vieira’s claims against AGM are sufficiently related to the Bankruptcy Case to warrant referral. Pursuant to the District of South Carolina’s Local Civil Rule 83.IX.01, this case should be referred to the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear a noncore claim only if it is related to the bankruptcy case; a personal malpractice claim with no conceivable effect on the estate does not qualify.

Sicherman v. Crosby (In Re Rivera) · filed 2007-12-13(c)(1)

Accordingly, this Court could only adjudicate Rivera’s legal malpractice claim against Crosby if such claim was related to the Debtor’s bankruptcy case. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). The Court finds no basis for concluding that Rivera’s legal malpractice claim could have any conceivable effect on the Debtor’s bankruptcy estate.

Section 157(c)(1) lets bankruptcy courts hear related-to proceedings and submit proposed findings and conclusions for de novo district court review.

Schubert v. Lucent Technologies Inc. · filed 2009-02-03(c)(1)

Thus, the Trustee’s breach of contract claim falls within § 157(c)(1) because resolution of that claim “could conceivably have [an] effect on the estate being administered in bankruptcy.” ... Thus, even assuming that the Bankruptcy Court could not enter a final judgment as to the breach of contract claim, the lower courts complied with the necessary procedures for cases based on a bankruptcy court’s “related to” jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(a) covers a proceeding integral to a bankruptcy when its outcome affects the funds available to creditors.

Leibowitz v. Great American Group, Inc. · filed 2009-03-18(a)

How much money is available for other creditors depends on the disposition of this proceeding, which is an integral part of Goldblatt’s bankruptcy. Jurisdiction under § 157(a) cannot reasonably be doubted.

Section 157(a) permits referral of a proceeding to bankruptcy court when its outcome might have a conceivable effect on the bankruptcy estate.

Reifler v. Glaser, Weil, Fink, Jacobs, Howard & Shapiro, LLP · filed 2010-06-28(a)

Accordingly, the question is not whether the case should be “removed” pursuant to Section 9027, but whether it should be “referred” to the bankruptcy court because it is “related to a case under Title 11.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(a). A case is “related to” a pending bankruptcy proceeding when its outcome might have any “conceivable effect” on the bankrupt estate.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to conduct pretrial proceedings while the core status of a counterclaim remains unresolved.

SJI, Inc. v. Staehnke (In Re SJI, Inc.) · filed 2010-12-29(c)

They may hear related proceedings and make recommendations of findings of fact and conclusions of law to the Article III unit of the district court, which will act upon the recommendations and consider de novo any matters to which a party has timely objected. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c). ... In the meantime, the proceeding can go forward in the pretrial phase in bankruptcy court.

Section 157(c)(1) allows a bankruptcy judge to recommend a decision in a related-to proceeding but withholds authority to make the final decision.

Townsquare Media, Inc. v. Brill · filed 2011-07-21(c)(1)

But 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) withholds author- ity from the bankruptcy judge to make the decision in a “related to” case; he can only recommend a decision to the district court.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear a non-core claim related to a bankruptcy case when the claim could conceivably affect the estate, including through potential contribution or indemnification liability.

Amedisys, Inc. v. Hosch · filed 2012-08-29(c)(1)

Under the Bankruptcy Code, a bankruptcy court may also hear proceedings on non-core claims that are “otherwise related to a case under title 11.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). ... Based upon our holding in In re Dow Corning, Amedisys’s arguments regarding the supposedly negligible impact of the claims on the estate and regarding JPMorgan’s status as a non-debtor fail.

Section 157(c) permits related-to jurisdiction only when the proceeding’s outcome could conceivably affect the bankruptcy estate.

Marshall v. PNC Bank, N.A. (In re Marshall) · filed 2012-09-24(c)

The appropriate test to determine whether this Court has “related to” jurisdiction over the Debtor’s FDCPA Claim is whether the outcome of the Debtor’s FDCPA Claim could have any conceivable effect on the Debtor’s bankruptcy estate. ... Accordingly, this Court lacks “related to” jurisdiction over the FDCPA Claim.

Section 157(c)(1) applies to proceedings concerning transfer claims whose resolution could affect funds available for distribution to creditors.

Peterson v. Enhanced Investing Corp. (In Re Lancelot Investors Fund, L.P.) · filed 2012-10-25(c)(1)

However, because resolution of the various transfer claims asserted by the Trustee could affect the extent of funds the estate has available for distribution to its creditors, this matter implicates 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) which provides: A bankruptcy judge may hear a proceeding that is not a core proceeding but that is otherwise related to a case under title 11.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear a noncore proceeding only when it is sufficiently related to the bankruptcy case; after plan confirmation, a claim that does not affect the bankruptcy process or the plan falls outside that authority.

Santander Consumer, USA, Inc. v. Houlik (In re Houlik) · filed 2012-10-29(c)(1)

Regardless of whether we apply the Third Circuit’s close nexus test or a narrower standard, we conclude that the bankruptcy court did not have post-confirmation “related to” jurisdiction over this wrongful repossession action. Even though it is brought by the debtors, the action affects neither an integral aspect of the bankruptcy process, nor the interpretation, implementation, consummation, execution, or administration of the confirmed plan.

Section 157(c)(1) covers a non-core proceeding related to a bankruptcy case when the proceeding has an immediate effect on the debtor’s estate through an accrued claim for defense costs.

Bank of New York v. Becker (In re Lower Bucks Hospital) · filed 2013-01-02(c)(1)

We conclude that the Bankruptcy Court had “related to” jurisdiction over the third party release provision as part of LBH’s plan of reorganization. This is because the filing of the class action against BNYM had an immediate effect on LBH’s bankruptcy estate when it triggered BNYM’s claim for defense costs against LBH.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear related counterclaims even when the judge cannot enter final judgment on them.

Settlers' Housing Service, Inc. v. Schaumburg Bank & Trust Co., N.A. (In re Settlers' Housing Service, Inc.) · filed 2014-06-30(c)(1)

Therefore, even though a bankruptcy may not enter a final judgment or order, a bankruptcy judge may “hear” such a proceeding.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to decide a nonfinal motion in a related proceeding, while final judgment must be recommended to the district court.

LaGrone v. LVNV Funding LLC (In re LaGrone) · filed 2015-01-21(c)(1)

The motion to dismiss is therefore within the authority of a bankruptcy judge to decide. Only if the debtor fails to amend the dismissed complaint would a final judgment be recommended for entry by the district court under § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(a) permits referral of proceedings related to a bankruptcy case; a lender’s claim against a guarantor of the debtor’s loans qualifies as related.

UDX, LLC v. Heavner · filed 2015-06-26(a)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), “Each 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.” ... Therefore, because UDX — as a lender— brings a claim for breach of contract under guaranties on Title 11 debtors’ loans against Heavner — a guarantor of thosé loans, this case is “related to” a case under Title 11 and will be referred to the bankruptcy court as required by Local Rule 83.il.

Section 157(a) permits a district court to refer a related bankruptcy proceeding to the bankruptcy court, and the referral is discretionary.

Lorna Kellam v. · filed 2016-01-15(a)

Second, Kellam has not demonstrated that the District Court abused its discretion by referring the case to the Bankruptcy Court as related to her proceedings before that court. See In re Resorts Int’l, Inc., 372 F.3d 154, 162 (3d Cir. 2004) (“The district courts’ power to refer is discretionary, but courts routinely refer most bankruptcy cases to the bankruptcy court.”) (quotation marks omitted); 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157 limits a bankruptcy court’s authority over noncore proceedings to those related to a bankruptcy case; a claim objection that cannot affect the estate falls outside that limit.

Booker Wade, Jr. v. Stevens · filed 2016-12-21(c)(1)

The bankruptcy court properly found that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate Wade’s claim objection because any adjudication would not have impacted the bankruptcy estate.

Section 157(c)(1) limits a bankruptcy court in a related proceeding without the parties’ consent to issuing recommendations subject to de novo district court review.

Sean Southard, as Plan Administrator of the Amende v. BARRETT · filed 2019-11-15(c)(1)

The parties agree that this adversary proceeding is “related to” the underlying bankruptcy cases but they have not consented to the entry of a final judgment by this Court. Accordingly, this Court only has the authority to issue a report and recommendations that will be subject to de novo review by the District Court.

Section 157(a) permits referral to bankruptcy court when a proceeding is related to a title 11 case, including when its claims will likely overlap with claims pursued for the estate.

Mansfield Oil Company of Gainesville, Inc. v. Capitala Finance Corp. · filed 2019-12-16(a)

This matter is related to the ongoing title 11 matter because Mansfield’s claims will likely overlap with those brought by the Trustee’s special counsel.

Section 157(c)(1) covers non-core proceedings related to a bankruptcy case when their outcome could affect administration of the estate.

Bushman Custom Farming, LLC v. Stillmunkes · filed 2020-04-30(c)(1)

WHEREFORE, the Court decides that it has “related to” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) in this case.

Section 157 does not give district courts discretion to choose the Civil Rules over the Bankruptcy Rules in non-core, related-to cases.

Roy v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co. · filed 2021-06-02

Read naturally, section 157 instructs that the Civil Rules stop where the Bankruptcy Rules begin — a proposition that is antithetic to the plaintiffs' pick-and-choose approach.

Claims against nondebtors fall outside a bankruptcy court’s referred jurisdiction under § 157(a) when their potential effect on the bankruptcy estate is too tenuous.

WARD v. WHITE RIVER CONTRACTING LLC · filed 2021-09-10(a)

The relationship between Plaintiffs’ claims against the Non-Debtor Defendants and any effect those claims could conceivably have on White River’s bankruptcy is tenuous at best and insufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a).

Section 157(a) permits referral to a bankruptcy judge when a proceeding could conceivably affect the debtor’s estate.

FIRE GROUND TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. HOMETOWN RESTORATION, LLC · filed 2022-06-23(a)

For substantially the reasons stated in Judge Wettre’s Opinion and Order, the Court agrees that this action will have a conceivable effect on Hometown Restoration’s estate in the Bankruptcy Action, such that it is “related to” the Bankruptcy Action and should be transferred to Judge Drain.

Section 157(a) permits referral of proceedings related to a bankruptcy case, including settlement motions that could conceivably affect the estate.

In re: Fog Cap Retail Investors LLC · filed 2022-08-17(a)

The Court finds that the settlement motions and stipulations could “conceivably have an[] effect on the estate being administered in bankruptcy” and therefore were related to the bankruptcy action, which gave the bankruptcy court jurisdiction.

Section 157 covers proceedings related to a bankruptcy when their outcome could conceivably affect the bankruptcy estate.

Bank of America, N.A. v. Wilmington Trust FSB · filed 2013-05-03

Second, Bank of America’s argument fails on its face: this action is at least “related to” the underlying bankruptcy because its outcome could very well have a “conceivable effect” on the bankrupt estate.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear a noncore proceeding only if its outcome could conceivably affect the debtor’s estate.

Kirschenbaum Ex Rel. Estate of the Robert Plan Corp. v. United States Department of Labor (In Re Robert Plan Corp.) · filed 2015-02-05(c)(1)

In addition to having jurisdiction over “core proceedings,” a bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to “hear a proceeding that is not a core proceeding but that is otherwise related to a case under [the Bankruptcy ... Code].” 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). ... Finally, no “related to” jurisdiction exists. ... Therefore, the outcome of the proceeding relating to compensation could not conceivably have had any effect on the Debtors’ estates.

Section 157(b)(1) requires an underlying Title 11 case for a bankruptcy court to exercise jurisdiction over an adversary proceeding.

In re: Maria Rivera Barragan · filed 2014-08-26(b)(1)

Under the relevant statutes, 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), bankruptcy court jurisdiction hinges on the existence of a case under Title 11 of the United States Code – more commonly known as the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear a non-core proceeding after confirmation of a chapter 13 plan when the proceeding has a close nexus to an integral aspect of the bankruptcy process, such as payment under the plan.

William J. Gruver v. · filed 2024-10-01(c)(1)

Because payment on a confirmed chapter 13 plan qualifies as an “integral aspect” of the bankruptcy process, the Bankruptcy Court had related-to jurisdiction to hear the Gruvers’ adversary proceeding.