28 U.S.C. § 157

Section 157(b)(2)(H) gives bankruptcy courts authority to determine constructive fraudulent conveyance proceedings.

NextWave Personal Communications, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (In Re NextWave Personal Communications, Inc · filed 1999-07-27(b)(2)(H)

Specifically, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H) grants the Bankruptcy Court jurisdiction to determine “proceedings to determine, avoid, or recover fraudulent conveyances.” The Bankruptcy Court therefore held that the constructive fraudulent conveyance dispute tendered by the Adversary Proceeding was within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court, and this Court agrees.

Section 157(b)(2)(H) treats a fraudulent-transfer avoidance proceeding as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

National Environmental Systems Corp. v. Long Pond Realty Trust (In Re National Environmental Systems Corp.) · filed 1989-09-29(b)(2)(H)

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H).

Section 157(b)(2)(H) includes fraudulent conveyance actions among core proceedings that a bankruptcy court may constitutionally adjudicate when brought on behalf of the estate.

McFarland & Tondre v. Texas General · filed 1994-12-28(b)(2)(H)

The list includes fraudulent conveyance actions. ... For practical purposes, the fraudulent conveyance action instituted on behalf of the estate is as integral to the bankruptcy restructuring process as any other core proceeding. We conclude that the bankruptcy court's exercise of jurisdiction in the fraudulent conveyance action was constitutional.

Section 157(b)(2)(H) and (O) classify fraudulent conveyance matters and other proceedings affecting the liquidation of the estate as core proceedings.

Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Interstate Cigar Co. v. Interstate Distribution, Inc. (In Re Interstate Cigar Co.) · filed 2002-11-25(b)(2)(H) and (b)(2)(O)

The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H) and (0).

Section 157(b)(2)(H) treats proceedings to determine, avoid, or recover fraudulent conveyances as core proceedings, while § 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment in non-core proceedings with the parties' consent.

Sherman v. FSC Realty LLC (In Re Brentwood Lexford Partners, LLC) · filed 2003-02-12(b)(2)(H), (c)(2)

A proceeding to determine, avoid or recover fraudulent conveyances constitutes a core matter over which this court has jurisdiction to enter a final judgment. 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(H) and 1384 (2002). The trustee’s other claims constitute non-core matters, but the parties have consented to the entry of a final judgment by the bankruptcy court. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2)(2002).

Section 157(b)(2)(H) treats proceedings to determine, avoid, or recover fraudulent conveyances as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Finger v. County of Sullivan Industrial Development Agency (In Re Paramount Hotel Corp.) · filed 2005-01-19(b)(2)(H)

Five of the eight causes of action are “proceedings to determine, avoid, or recover fraudulent conveyances,” which are core proceedings under Section 157(b)(2)(H).

Section 157 treats a fraudulent conveyance action under § 544(b) as a core proceeding and a prejudgment remedy ancillary to that action as part of the core proceeding.

Fisher v. Hamilton (In Re Teknek, LLC) · filed 2006-04-06(b)(2)(H)

Because this special cause of action is defined in the first instance by Title 11, it is, therefore, a “core proceeding” under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H). ... Viewed in this way, any prejudgment remedy under Bankruptcy Rule 7064 is part and parcel of the cause of action stated in the count to which the prejudgment remedy pertains, a count which in this case is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(H) classifies fraudulent transfer proceedings as core proceedings.

In Re Jamuna Real Estate, LLC · filed 2006-12-20(b)(2)(H)

Among the illustrative examples of core proceedings in § 157(b)(2) are fraudulent transfers. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H). ... The Court thus finds the parties to be correct in classifying this count as a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(H) treats claims seeking to recover fraudulent conveyances as core proceedings, including aiding and abetting or conspiracy claims seeking the same recovery.

Ramirez v. Rodriguez (In Re Ramirez) · filed 2009-06-24(b)(2)(H)

The examples listed in § 157(b) are illustrative only and are not limited to the specific matters listed. When the sought-after recovery is of the same underlying damages and when those damages arise from a fraudulent conveyance, the claim lies within the Court’s core jurisdiction.

Section 157 treats a trustee’s fraudulent transfer claims arising from the bankruptcy as core proceedings on which a bankruptcy court may enter final orders.

Menotte v. United States (In re Custom Contractors, LLC) · filed 2011-12-05(b)(2)(H)

This Court concludes that the Trustee’s fraudulent transfer claims are core proceedings stemming from the bankruptcy itself for which this Court has authority to enter final orders.

Section 157(b)(2)(H) classifies proceedings to recover fraudulent transfers as core proceedings that a bankruptcy judge may determine under § 157(b)(1).

Perkins v. Champagne (In re International Management Associates, LLC) · filed 2013-05-23(b)(2)(H)

It is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H), so this court has authority to ... determine the matter and enter final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

Section 157(b)(2)(H) does not make claims derived from causes of action available to debtors or noncreditors core fraudulent conveyance proceedings.

Goldsmith v. Massad (In re Fiorillo) · filed 2013-06-03(b)(2)(H)

Thus, there is no basis for finding that these adversary proceedings are core matters under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H) or any other part of § 157(b).

Section 157 treats fraudulent transfer proceedings as core proceedings in which bankruptcy courts may enter final orders.

Tyler v. Banks (In re Tyler) · filed 2013-06-06(b)(2)

For all of these reasons, the Court concludes that the fraudulent transfer action here is within this Court’s core jurisdiction and authority to enter a final order.

Section 157(b)(2)(H) treats fraudulent transfer claims brought under section 548 or through section 544(b) as core proceedings.

Reid v. Wolf (In re Wolf) · filed 2018-11-19(b)(2)(H)

Here, the fraudulent transfer counts, both those based directly on section 548 and those based on the UFTA/section 544(b), are core.

Section 157(b)(1) permits bankruptcy courts to enter final judgments in core fraudulent transfer claims, including claims against defendants who have not filed claims against the estate.

Paragon Litig. Trust v. Noble Corp. (In re PLC) · filed 2019-03-11(b)(1)

Bankruptcy courts, having been granted the authority to do so by Congress, may enter final judgments in all core fraudulent transfer claims.

Section 157(b)(2)(H) lists fraudulent transfer proceedings as core, but a claim that only augments assets and does not stem from bankruptcy or require resolution in the claims allowance process must be treated as non-core for final judgment purposes.

in British Am. Ins. Co. v. Fullerton (In re British Am. Ins. Co.) · filed 2019-05-17(b)(2)(H)

While labelled as a "core" proceeding under the applicable statute, the fraudulent transfer claim against Ms. Baldini must be treated as a non-core proceeding. Absent consent of the parties, which it appears does not exist, this court may not enter final orders or judgment in the matter.

Section 157(b)(2)(H) classifies fraudulent transfer claims as core proceedings within the bankruptcy court's subject matter jurisdiction.

Philip Montoya, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Ferguson · filed 2024-01-23(b)(2)(H)

More specifically, a bankruptcy court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H) to decide a fraudulent transfer claim.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a proceeding to establish ownership of property in which the bankruptcy estate has an interest as a core proceeding.

JFMPC, LLC v. JTL JV, LLC · filed 2024-02-02(b)(2)(A), (N), and (O)

This proceeding is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A), (N), and (O) because it seeks to establish ownership of a parcel of property in which the estate has an interest.

Section 157(b)(2)(B), (I), (J), and (O) identifies certain bankruptcy matters as core proceedings.

Coleman County State Bank v. Boyd · filed 2024-02-12(b)(2)(B), (I), (J), and (O)

The proceeding is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B),(I),(J) and (O).

Section 157(c)(1) requires district court review of a bankruptcy court’s findings in a non-core proceeding, making a jury trial before the bankruptcy court effectively advisory.

Manley Truck Line, Inc. v. Mercantile Bank of Kansas City · filed 1989-10-03(c)(1)

Given that Manley has requested a jury trial, the court finds that reference of the above-captioned matter would not be in the interests of judicial economy since any jury trial before a bankruptcy court would be rendered essentially “advisory” by this court’s duty to review the bankruptcy court’s findings.

Section 157(b)(3) requires the bankruptcy court to determine whether a proceeding is core; a debtor’s complex claim against an insurer can be non-core.

Amatex Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (In Re Amatex Corp.) · filed 1989-10-30(b)(3)

While we believe that this court has jurisdiction to hear this proceeding, we are compelled, see 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3), to determine that this proceeding is indeed non-core.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear a non-core proceeding and recommend findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court.

Bryant v. Woodland (In Re Bryant) · filed 1990-01-31(c)(1)

This court has jurisdiction to hear this non-core proceeding and to recommend findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) allows a bankruptcy court to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law, but not a final judgment, in a non-core proceeding.

Poissonnerie La Belle Maree, Inc. v. Johnson (In Re Johnson) · filed 1990-05-25(c)(1)

This Court could only enter findings of fact and conclusions of law but no final judgment, see, 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) requires a bankruptcy court to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court for a non-core claim that does not affect the debtor’s estate.

Scrima v. Insurance Co. of North America (In re Scrima) · filed 1990-07-31(c)(1)

The claim of INA against Transamerica is a non-core proceeding because it does not affect the Debtors’ estate, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), the Court .must submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the District Court.

Section 157(c)(1) requires district court de novo review of non-core related proceedings, so a bankruptcy judge cannot conduct a jury trial in such a proceeding without the parties’ consent.

Colbert v. Anderson (In Re Colbert) · filed 1990-08-07(c)(1)

Thus, a district court could not conduct the required de novo review if a bankruptcy court were to Conduct a jury trial in a proceeding under § 157(c)(1).

Section 157 treats a disputed state-law contract claim for payment as a non-core proceeding.

In Re The Charter Company · filed 1990-10-11(c)(1)

The bankruptcy court correctly determined that the dispute between Exxon and Charter was a non-core proceeding; that is, the amount of funds owed according to the net settlement agreement and under the contracts was in dispute.

Section 157 treats a disputed state-law contract claim collateral to bankruptcy as a non-core proceeding.

Charter Crude Oil Co. v. Exxon Co. (In re Charter Co.) · filed 1990-10-11(c)(1)

The bankruptcy court correctly determined that the dispute between Exxon and Charter was a non-core proceeding; that is, the amount of funds owed according to the net settlement agreement and under the contracts was in dispute.

Section 157(c)(1) requires district court review of noncore matters, so bankruptcy courts cannot conduct jury trials in those matters without the parties’ consent.

Taxel v. Electronic Sports Research (In re Cinematronics, Inc.) · filed 1990-10-22(c)(1)

We agree with these courts and conclude that bankruptcy courts cannot conduct jury trials on noncore matters, where the parties have not consented.

An application for attorney’s fees under 26 U.S.C. § 7430 is a non-core proceeding even when it follows a core proceeding.

Internal Revenue Service v. Brickell Investment Corp. (In re Brickell Investment Corp.) · filed 1991-01-28(b)(1)

Although debtors’ counsel presents a persuasive argument as to why a request for attorneys fees as a result of a core proceeding should not be the basis of a separate contested matter, we are bound by the reasoning of this Circuit’s earlier decision in In re Davis and must hold that an application for attorney’s fees under 26 U.S.C. § 7430 is a non-core proceeding.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear a non-core proceeding related to a bankruptcy case and submit proposed findings and conclusions, while the district court enters the final order or judgment.

Shop & Go, Inc. v. D.K. Patterson Construction Co. (In Re Shop & Go, Inc.) · filed 1991-03-14(c)(1)

Because the state court action is merely “related to” the plaintiff/debtor’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, the state court action is a non-core proceeding that the undersigned may hear on its merits for the purpose of entering proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court which shall then enter any final order or judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) limits a bankruptcy judge in non-core proceedings to proposed findings and conclusions, which the district court reviews de novo.

Oneida Motor Freight, Inc. v. Ormond Shops, Inc. · filed 1991-04-11(c)(1)

Because the instant matter involves non-core proceedings, the bankruptcy judge may submit only proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law which are subject to de novo review by this court.

A core counterclaim against a creditor who filed a proof of claim does not make an entire proceeding core when non-core claims predominate.

Nationwide Roofing & Sheet Metal, Inc. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co. (In Re Nationwide Roofing & Sheet Metal, Inc.) · filed 1991-08-13(b)(2)(C)

Upon consideration of both the form and substance of this proceeding, and in recognition of the constitutional issues implicated in the exercise of bankruptcy court jurisdiction, and because non-core aspects clearly predominate, this court finds that the core aspect involving the defendant Lent is insufficient to transform this otherwise non-core proceeding into a core proceeding.

Section 157(c) requires both parties’ unconditional consent before a bankruptcy judge may hold a jury trial and enter final judgment in a non-core related proceeding.

Fishell v. Soltow (In re Fishell) · filed 1991-10-04(c)

The jury’s opinion would only be advisory, which is certainly not what is intended by the Seventh Amendment. Absent unconditional consent by both parties for this court to hold a jury trial and to enter final orders or judgments, the bankruptcy court lacks jurisdiction to hold a jury trial.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear a non-core proceeding but requires the district court to make the final decision.

Thomas v. Chrysler Credit Corp. (In re Ozier) · filed 1991-10-16(c)(1)

The Complaint filed by the trustee in this adversary proceeding is not a core proceeding. However, under the Eighth Circuit standard, it is clearly related to the bankruptcy case because any recovery by the trustee would result in funds which would be distributed to the as yet unpaid creditors of Mr. Ozier. The bankruptcy court, thus, can hear the matter but must confine itself to submitting findings and recommendations to the district court.

A debtor’s request to determine personal tax liability is a non-core proceeding when it has no conceivable effect on administration of the bankruptcy estate.

Millsaps v. United States (In Re Millsaps) · filed 1991-11-04(b), (c)

A determination of the 1982 tax would have no conceivable effect on the administration of the bankruptcy estate. Based on these facts, the claim for a determination of the 1982 tax is not a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) and (c).

Section 157(c)(1) treats a debtor’s suit to collect payment for goods as a non-core proceeding when it is related to a bankruptcy case but neither arises under title 11 nor arises in a title 11 case.

Golden Distributors, Ltd. v. Garced (In Re Golden Distributors, Ltd.) · filed 1991-12-18(c)(1)

The debtor’s suit against these defendants is a non-core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). This is a civil proceeding which neither arises under title 11 nor arises in a case under title 11, but is related to a case under title 11, as authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b).

Section 157(c)(1) requires a bankruptcy judge to submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court in a non-core proceeding that is related to a bankruptcy case.

Golden Distributors, Ltd. v. Save All Tobacco, Inc. (Golden Distributors, Ltd.) · filed 1991-12-27(c)(1)

The debtor’s suit against these defendants is a non-core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). This is a civil proceeding which neither arises under title 11 nor arises in a case under title 11, but is related to a case under title 11, as authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). Accordingly, the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are submitted to the district court for a final order or judgement to be entered by the district court after considering the proposed findings and conclusions and after reviewing de novo those matters to which any party has timely and specifically objected as expressed in 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) applies to a trustee’s non-core action to collect an alleged overpayment made by the debtor.

Boyd v. North End Auto Sales, Inc. (In Re Check Reporting Services, Inc.) · filed 1992-02-20(c)(1)

The overpayment proceeding is a non-core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) treats an ordinary prepetition contract claim involving no substantive bankruptcy law as a non-core proceeding for which the bankruptcy court submits proposed findings and conclusions.

Private Capital Partners, Inc. v. RVI Guaranty Co. (In Re Private Capital Partners, Inc.) · filed 1992-04-27(c)(1)

On the other hand, it is settled law in this court that a garden variety prepetition breach of contract case invokes no substantive principles of bankruptcy law and is a non-core proceeding. ... Accordingly, this adversary proceeding will be treated as a non-core proceeding, which will require proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law if it is to be tried in the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(c)(1) prevents a bankruptcy judge from entering a final order in a non-core proceeding; a request for judicial review of an agency determination does not become core by being characterized as a turnover action.

Bell v. Federal Deposit Insurance (In Re Collins Securities Corp.) · filed 1992-06-26(c)(1)

The Court finds that neither Count I nor Count II sets forth a core proceeding. Count II is clearly non-core. Count I, when stripped of its characterization as a turnover action, is nothing more than a request for judicial review of an agency determination which does “not arise in the core bankruptcy function of adjusting debtor-creditor rights.” 130 Cong.Rec. H1848 (daily ed. Mar. 21, 1984). Hence, this Court cannot enter a final order in this adversary proceeding.

Section 157 permits a proceeding with both core and non-core claims to be classified as core when the core aspects heavily predominate and the disputed non-core aspects are insignificant.

Hughes-Bechtol, Inc. v. State (In Re Hughes-Bechtol, Inc.) · filed 1992-06-30(b)(2)

Accordingly, as a result of the court’s conclusion that the allegations concerning the postpetition contract and tort causes of action are core with respect to the State and its agencies, the court’s determination that the alleged repeated postpetition activities among Hughes and the Remaining Defendants are core, and the court’s determination that the alleged stay violations are core, this court concludes that this proceeding, considered in toto, is core because the core aspect “heavily predominates” and the disputed non-core aspects are not significant.

Prepetition contract claims that exist independently of bankruptcy are non-core proceedings under § 157.

Midwest Communications Corp. v. Black Entertainment Television (In Re Midwest Communications Corp.) · filed 1992-07-22(b)(2)

The contracts herein were entered into pre-petition, and according to the criteria set out in the above-referenced cases, this is a non-core matter.

Section 157(c) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear a related non-core proceeding and submit proposed findings to the district court, but requires the parties’ consent for a final decision by the bankruptcy judge.

Sanders Confectionery Products, Inc. v. Heller Financial, Inc. · filed 1992-08-17(c)

In non-core proceedings that are “related to” the bankruptcy case, the bankruptcy judge may hear the matter and “submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court,” but without the parties consent the bankruptcy court may not make a final decision on the matter. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c).

A freight-undercharge claim that exists independently of bankruptcy is non-core, even if the plaintiff characterizes it as turnover of estate property.

Whitaker v. Las Vegas Fertilizer Co. (In Re Olympia Holding Corp.) · filed 1992-12-14(b)(3)

The instant proceeding involves alleged freight undercharges under the Interstate Commerce Act and the Motor Carrier Act. The cause of action exist outside the bankruptcy and is not a core proceeding.

Section 157 treats a state-law wrongful-termination claim related to a bankruptcy case as a non-core proceeding.

Kagan v. El San Juan Hotel Corp. (In Re El San Juan Hotel Corp.) · filed 1992-12-29(b)(1)

The language of section 157 specifically mentions “arising under” and “arising in” cases, leading to the conclusion that the statute did not intend to include “related” cases in the group that could be considered a core proceeding. ... Therefore, according to the above discussion, the instant case, as a related case, is a non-core proceeding.

Section 157(c)(1) requires a bankruptcy court to submit a report and recommendation to the district court on non-core matters when the parties do not consent to a final decision by the bankruptcy court.

Boyd v. Sachs (In Re Auto Specialties Manufacturing Co.) · filed 1993-01-28(c)(1)

The Trustee having refused to so consent, the court’s opinion takes the form of a report and recommendation to the district court as to these non-core matters.

Section 157 does not give bankruptcy courts jurisdiction over non-core proceedings unrelated to a bankruptcy case.

In re Rose · filed 1993-02-16(c)

Creditor’s Motion to Terminate Purchase Option constitutes a non-core and unrelated proceeding. It neither arises under or relates to Title 11; nor can it be classified as a core proceeding. Since bankruptcy courts lack jurisdiction over non-core and unrelated proceedings, Creditor’s Motion to Terminate Purchase Option should be Dismissed.

A proceeding’s classification as core under § 157(b) carries minimal weight in deciding whether a party has a right to a jury trial.

Thomas M. Germain, Trustee for the Estate of O'sullivan's Fuel Oil Co., Inc. v. The Connecticut National Bank · filed 1993-03-24(b)

The right to a jury trial is of constitutional concern. Neither Congress nor the courts may deprive litigants of their constitutional rights simply by labeling a cause of action "core." See Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33, 61, 109 S.Ct. 2782, 2800, 106 L.Ed.2d 26 (1989). Thus the determination that the Trustee's action is "core" is entitled to minimal weight in reaching our ultimate decision on the jury trial issue.

Section 157 treats state law contract and tort claims as non-core when they do not invoke rights created by bankruptcy law and can proceed in state court.

Searcy v. Knostman · filed 1993-06-09(b)(2)

These guideposts, applied to the present case, clearly reveal that the parties here are engaged in a non-core proceeding. Plaintiffs are not suing on a right created by the federal bankruptcy laws, nor could this suit only survive in bankruptcy court.

A proceeding is non-core when it invokes no right created by bankruptcy law and the asserted right can exist outside bankruptcy.

Grimes v. Graue (In Re Haws) · filed 1993-09-09(b)(3)

Non-core proceedings, by statutory definition, are those proceedings “otherwise related to a case under title 11.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3). As this Court ruled at the July 13 hearing, the matter currently before the Court was not a core proceeding. It does not invoke a substantive right created by the federal bankruptcy law, and the right could exist outside of bankruptcy law.

Section 157(b)(2) treats claims that could affect a bankruptcy estate as non-core when they neither invoke a substantive right under title 11 nor could arise only in a bankruptcy case.

Southern Marine & Industrial Services, Inc. v. AK Engineering, Inc. (In Re AK Services, Inc.) · filed 1993-09-24(b)(2)

Since this action was commenced prior to the bankruptcy case, except as noted above, no substantive right provided by title 11 is present, and the case could not have arisen only in the context of a bankruptcy case. Thus, the majority of claims and causes of action ... that could conceivably affect the Debtor’s estate are “non-core” and merely “related to” the bankruptcy case.

Section 157’s core or non-core classification does not itself establish bankruptcy subject matter jurisdiction.

Walnut Associates v. Saidel · filed 1994-02-23(b)

Moreover, in the same breath, plaintiff is wrong to suggest that because these proceedings are related “non-core” proceedings, the court has jurisdiction. The determination of whether the proceedings are “core” or “non-core,” however, is irrelevant to a determination of whether this court has jurisdiction.

Section 157’s core/non-core distinction is irrelevant when both parties request judgment on the pleadings from the bankruptcy court.

Ferrell v. Southern Financial, Inc. (In Re Ferrell) · filed 1994-04-05(b), (c)

Pursuant to Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7012(c) the parties have requested the Bankruptcy Court for a judgment on the pleadings. Cf. Fed. R.Bankr.P. 7056. Thus, the core/non-core dichotomy under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) and (c) is not relevant.

Section 157(c)(1) allows a bankruptcy court to hear related non-core matters and submit proposed findings and conclusions for de novo review by the district court.

In Re, Intl Nutronics, Inc. · filed 1994-06-27(c)(1)

The bankruptcy court may hear non-core matters that are "related to a case under Title 11." 28 U.S.C. Sec. 157(c)(1). Although the bankruptcy court does not have power to render a decision in non-core matters, the claim will be decided. The bankruptcy court may submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, which the district court reviews de novo.

For a non-core matter, § 157 limits the bankruptcy court to proposed findings for the district court to consider.

Barnes v. Cigna Group Insurance (In re Barnes) · filed 1994-08-18(c)(1)

Moreover, as this matter is non-core, the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 157 further lengthen the proceeding because this Court would only be able to make proposed findings to the district court which then would consider the issues.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear a non-core proceeding related to a bankruptcy case, subject to district court review of its proposed findings and conclusions.

Aer-Aerotron, Inc. v. Texas Department of Transportation (In Re Aer-Aerotron, Inc.) · filed 1994-09-22(c)(1)

Therefore, while this court’s orders may be subject to de novo review, the court still has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(b) and 157(c)(1).

Section 157 limits a bankruptcy court in a non-core proceeding to proposed findings for the district court, which considers objections.

Hays v. Cummins (In Re Cummins) · filed 1994-11-28(c)(1)

Inasmuch as these matters are non-core, the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 157 further lengthen the proceeding because this Court would be limited to making proposed findings to the district court which then considers objections.

Section 157(b)(2) treats claims under prepetition contracts allegedly breached both before and after the bankruptcy filing as non-core when the contracts did not arise from administering the estate.

Ralls v. Docktor Pet Centers, Inc. · filed 1995-01-26(b)(2)

This court, therefore, adopts the premise “that this action, involving pre-petition contracts, allegedly breached both before and after the filing of the petition, is entirely a non-core matter related to a case arising under title 11.”

Section 157 treats independent securities fraud allegations as non-core proceedings that a bankruptcy court cannot finally determine without the parties' consent.

Jacobson v. Aeg Capital Corp. · filed 1995-03-29(c)(1)

Although bankruptcy courts may hear non-core proceedings that are "related to" bankruptcy (28 U.S.C. Sec. 157(c)(1)), they cannot determine related issues absent the consent of all parties. ... It did not make any binding determination regarding independent allegations of securities fraud, which would have been issues of non-core proceedings.

Section 157 treats proceedings that arise only in bankruptcy or involve a right created by federal bankruptcy law as core proceedings.

Specialty Mills, Inc. Hesco, Inc. Bruce Hestad v. Citizens State Bank Dakota Oat Processors, Inc. · filed 1995-04-05(b)(2)

Core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157 are those which arise only in bankruptcy or involve a right created by federal bankruptcy law. ... The claims brought by appellants against CSB are non-core, related proceedings.

Claims that fit none of § 157(b)(2)’s criteria are related non-core matters.

Schlein v. Golub (In Re Schlein) · filed 1995-05-19(b)(2)

Having reviewed the numerous claims in the amended complaint, the Court is of the opinion that the claims, in their particular procedural posture, do not fit any of the criteria of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) and are therefore “related” non-core matters.

Section 157(c)(2) requires more than mere silence to establish consent to bankruptcy court adjudication of a non-core proceeding.

Church Mutual Insurance Co. v. Mount Calvary Baptist Church (In re Mount Calvary Baptist Church) · filed 1995-11-13(c)(2)

Church Mutual, by mere silence, did not consent to proceed in the bankruptcy court under § 157(c)(2).

Section 157 treats a trustee’s RICO claims against a party with no claim against the bankruptcy estate as non-core proceedings when the claims can exist outside bankruptcy.

Marshall v. City of Atlanta · filed 1996-03-29(b)(2)

After careful consideration and since there are no objections, this court ADOPTS Judge Brizendine's Report and Recommendation. ... Based on the above discussion, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's RICO claims against Wilbourn constitute a non-core matter.

A trustee’s RICO claim against a defendant who has not filed a claim against the bankruptcy estate is a non-core proceeding when it does not invoke a right created by bankruptcy law or arise only in bankruptcy.

Marshall v. City of Atlanta (In re Air Terminal Enterprises, Inc.) · filed 1996-07-01(b)(2)

Based on the above discussion, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs RICO claims against Wilbourn constitute a non-core matter.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to treat related prepetition and postpetition undercharge claims together as non-core proceedings and submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court.

Noonan v. Cellu Tissue Corp. (In Re Palmer Trucking Co.) · filed 1996-09-23(b)

In view of the forgoing, this Court will deem all of the undercharge claims to be non-core proceedings, and at the appropriate time, as set forth below, submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court, together with this supporting Memorandum.

Section 157(b)(3) governs a bankruptcy judge’s determination of whether a proceeding is core or non-core.

County of Orange v. McGraw-Hill Companies (In Re County of Orange) · filed 1996-12-05(b)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3) (1996), I determine that this matter is a non-core proceeding.

Section 157 treats proceedings arising under the Bankruptcy Code or arising in a bankruptcy case as core, but excludes proceedings merely related to a bankruptcy case.

Personette v. Kennedy (In Re Midgard Corp.) · filed 1997-02-04(b)(1)

This interpretation is supported by the fact that, as discussed above, “core proceedings” in bankruptcy include proceedings that “arise under” the Bankruptcy Code and “arise in” bankruptcy cases, but do not include proceedings that are “related to” a bankruptcy case.

Section 157 treats a debtor’s claims arising from a prepetition stock purchase as non-core, but an equitable-subordination claim against a creditor as core.

Apex Automotive Warehouse, L.P. v. WSR Corp. (In Re Apex Automotive Warehouse, L.P.) · filed 1997-02-25(b)(2), (c)

This matter is a non-core proceeding as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(c) except for Count VI of the Amended Complaint which seeks to subordinate WSR’s claims against the estate and the resolution of which shall be a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(3) governs the bankruptcy court’s determination whether a proceeding is core or non-core.

AMW Cable Co. v. McCray (In Re McCray) · filed 1997-04-10(b)(3)

This is a related or non-core proceeding as contemplated by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3). ... If the debtor prevails in this litigation, the bankruptcy estate would be enhanced by his pro rata share of the sales proceeds realized from the sale of the Town of Metcalf cable franchise. As such, the court is compelled to conclude that this is a related or non-core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(3) does not make a proceeding non-core solely because state law may affect its resolution.

In Re G.T.L. Corp. · filed 1997-06-26(b)(3)

A determination that a proceeding is non-core cannot be made solely on the basis that its resolution may be affected by state law. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3). ... As such, the Court is forced to conclude that the proceeding between Cicchini and Galmish relating to the control of G.T.L. is a non-core proceeding.

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

Corbett v. MacDonald Moving Services, Inc. · filed 1997-08-08(c)(1)

A bankruptcy judge may hear proceedings that are not core proceedings, but that are “otherwise related to a ease under title 11.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). In that situation, the bankruptcy judge submits proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court, which then reviews any objections to the proposed findings de novo and enters a final judgment.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear a related non-core proceeding and submit proposed findings and conclusions for district court review.

Corbett v. Macdonald Moving Services · filed 1997-08-08(c)(1)

A bankruptcy judge may hear proceedings that are not core proceedings, but that are "otherwise related to a case under title 11." 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). In that situation, the bankruptcy judge submits proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court, which then reviews any objections to the proposed findings de novo and enters a final judgment.

A post-petition breach of a pre-petition contract is non-core when the defendant has filed no claim with the bankruptcy court; the timing of the breach does not change that classification.

McMahon v. Providence Capitol Enterprises, Inc. (In Re McMahon) · filed 1998-02-09(b)(2)

Thus, because the case law does not support the theory that the timing of the breach is relevant in cases involving pre-petition contracts where the defendant has not filed a claim with the bankruptcy court, the decisions in Marathon Pipe Line and Orion lead to the inescapable conclusion that the instant proceeding is non-core.

Section 157(c)(1) treats a debtor's state-law fee collection claims as noncore when their only bankruptcy connection is potential plan funding.

Wood v. Ghuste (In Re Wood) · filed 1998-01-26(c)(1)

The resolution of the dispute in this adversary proceeding is not connected to the bankruptcy case other than in the sense of providing money that the debtor could use to fund a Chapter 11 plan if he is successful in collecting a fee. ... Although the judgment as to Count II and Count II involves a “non-core” proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), as a procedural matter the court may nevertheless enter a final order rather than a proposed order in these circumstances.

Section 157(c)(1) treats a creditor’s effort to collect from a nondebtor, without a claim against the debtor or an impact on the estate, as a non-core proceeding subject to district court review.

Spirco, Inc. v. Copelin (In Re Spirco, Inc.) · filed 1998-04-13(c)(1)

But in the absence of a claim against the actual debtor or an impact upon the bankruptcy estate, the question of whether Copelin may execute on the state court judgment against a nondebtor is a non-core proceeding. The findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the bankruptcy court’s memorandum opinion constitute recommendations subject to de novo review by this court.

Section 157(c)(1) treats a state-law lawsuit that can stand alone in state court as a non-core proceeding within the bankruptcy court’s related-to jurisdiction.

H.J. Rowe, Inc. v. Sea Products, Inc. (In Re Talon Holdings, Inc.) · filed 1998-05-28(c)(1)

Because this lawsuit could and did stand alone in a state forum, it is a non-core matter within the Court’s “related to” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) governs non-core proceedings before a bankruptcy court.

In Re Buckeye Countrymark, Inc. · filed 1998-11-16(c)(1)

The Joint Motion for a declaratory judgment is a non-core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157 gives bankruptcy courts final judgment authority over core proceedings, while limiting them in non-core proceedings to proposed findings and conclusions for the district court.

Halper v. Halper · filed 1999-01-06(b), (c)(1)

We agree with the District Court's conclusion that the Bankruptcy Court had jurisdiction to enter a final order or judgment on these claims. However, the remaining claims regarding the Guaranty's enforceability and the extent of Barry's liability thereunder are non-core proceedings. The Bankruptcy Court did not have the power to issuefinal judgment on these claims, but rather was limited to submitting proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the District Court under S 157(c). Thus, the District Court erred in affirming the Bankruptcy Court's exercise of core proceeding jurisdiction to declare the Guaranty unenforceable as a violation of public policy.

Section 157(b) governs whether a bankruptcy court has core jurisdiction over a claim or proceeding.

Kaiser Aerospace & Electronics Corp. v. Teledyne Industries, Inc. · filed 1999-01-12(b)

Therefore, whether federal subject matter jurisdiction exists for a bankruptcy court to decide a state law claim depends upon whether the claim is “related to” the bankruptcy case or whether the claim is within the bankruptcy court’s core jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157 gives bankruptcy judges authority to finally decide core proceedings and limited authority to hear and recommend dispositions in non-core proceedings.

Lenior v. GE Capital Corp. (In Re Lenior) · filed 1999-03-11(b), (c)

Section 157 does not give bankruptcy judges full judicial power over all matters in which the district courts have jurisdiction under § 1334. With respect to proceedings other than the bankruptcy petition itself, § 157 allocates the jurisdiction created by § 1334 between “core” and “non-core” proceedings. Bankruptcy judges have authority to hear and determine core proceedings “arising under” Title 11 U.S.C. (the Bankruptcy Code) or “arising in” a case under Title 11, and have limited authority to hear and recommend disposition as to non-core proceedings “otherwise related to a case” under Title 11.

Section 157(b) defines core bankruptcy proceedings, while subsection (c) limits a bankruptcy court to recommending disposition of related matters unless the parties consent.

Wrt Creditors Liquidation v. Oppenheimer · filed 1999-03-29(b), (c)

Core proceedings are matters or proceedings that "are an integral part of the bankruptcy case," including "other proceedings affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate or the adjustment of the debtor-creditor ... relationship." In re Southmark Corp., 163 F.3d at 930 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(O)). "Related-to" matters are those which, because they are peripheral to the concerns of the bankruptcy case and based on extrinsic sources of law, require mandatory abstention. A bankruptcy court may make a recommendation to the district court on the disposition of related-to matters, but it may not enter judgment concerning them unless the parties expressly so consent. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats matters concerning administration of the bankruptcy estate as core proceedings.

Trust v. C.I.B.C. Oppenheimer Corp. · filed 1999-03-29(b)(2)(A)

Core proceedings are matters or proceedings that “are an integral part of the bankruptcy case,” including “other proceedings affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate or the adjustment of the debtor-creditor ... relationship.” In re Southmark Corp., 163 F.3d at 930 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0)). ... In this case, all of the alleged tortious conduct and breaches of contract occurred pre-petition. The only post-petition element of the WRT Trust’s state court lawsuit is one element of the damages claimed to result from pre-petition conduct and contracts, a claim for reorganization costs. Defendants’ assertion that the claim for the $11 million in reorganization costs is a core matter, or makes the entire case a core proceeding, fails.

Section 157(c) limits a bankruptcy judge’s power to grant relief in non-core proceedings, but does not limit jurisdiction over those proceedings.

Corestates Bank v. Huls America Inc · filed 1999-05-11(c)

Section 157(c) only limits a bankruptcy judge's power to grant relief, not jurisdiction over a proceeding requesting such relief.

Section 157(c) limits a bankruptcy judge's power to grant relief in non-core proceedings, but does not limit jurisdiction over those proceedings.

CoreStates Bank, N.A. v. Huls America, Inc. · filed 1999-05-11(c)

Section 157(c) only limits a bankruptcy judge's power to grant relief, not jurisdiction over a proceeding requesting such relief.

Section 157(c)(1) governs a bankruptcy court’s role in a noncore proceeding.

Copelin v. Spirco Inc · filed 1999-07-01(c)(1)

The proceeding was non-core, therefore, the Bankruptcy Court's jurisdiction arose under 28 U.S.C. S 157(c)(1), and we exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. S 1291.

Section 157(c)(1) makes a bankruptcy court’s findings and conclusions in a related non-core proceeding recommendations for the district court, which enters the final judgment.

Copelin v. Spirco, Inc., F/k/a Nasco Inc., Stephen I. Goldring, Trustee Innovo Group, Inc.,(pursuant to Rule 12(a) · filed 1999-07-01(c)(1)

The proceeding was non-core, therefore, the Bankruptcy Court’s jurisdiction arose under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), and we exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. As such, the Bankruptcy Court’s findings and conclusions are mere recommendations entitled to no deference, and the District Court’s findings of fact are subject to review for clear error.

Section 157(c)(1) limits a bankruptcy court in a non-core contract dispute to submitting proposed findings and conclusions to the district court rather than entering a final order.

In Re Trident Shipworks, Inc. · filed 1999-07-27(c)(1)

The present dispute is a contract dispute involving the construction of a luxury yacht, clearly a non-core matter. See Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 102 S.Ct. 2858, 73 L.Ed.2d 598 (1982). Thus, this Court may not enter a final dispositive order and its jurisdiction is limited to submitting proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) governs review of findings and recommendations in non-core proceedings, rather than appellate review of a bankruptcy court’s final decision.

Batlan v. Transamerica Commercial Finance Corp. · filed 1999-08-17(c)(1)

This is an "appellate” review of a final decision of the bankruptcy court, not a review of findings and recommendations in non-core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) and Bankr.R. Civ. Pro. 9033.

Section 157(c) limits bankruptcy judges in non-core matters to submitting proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court for de novo review.

V&M Management v. · filed 2000-04-12(c)

Decisional powers of bankruptcy judges in “non-core” matters are limited to submitting proposed factual and legal findings to the district court for de novo review.

Section 157 requires a count-by-count core proceeding determination when an adversary proceeding combines core and non-core claims.

Hudgins v. Shah (In Re Systems Engineering & Energy Management Associates, Inc.) · filed 2000-07-19(b)(3)

Given the continuing deference to the Marathon decision, as articulated in Apex Express, this Court believes it must reject the alternate “predominantly core” test and, instead, conduct a count-by-count analysis of each of the Trustee’s specific claims.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to enter final orders and judgments in a non-core proceeding when the parties consent.

Fleet Bank, N.A. v. Business Alliance Capital Corp. (In Re Ocean Petroleum, Inc.) · filed 2000-08-23(c)(2)

Although this action is not a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157, the parties have consented to the entry of final orders and judgments herein by the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157(c) allows a bankruptcy court to hear a non-core proceeding without the parties’ consent for decision by the district court; that procedure does not prevent claim preclusion.

Plotner v. AT & T Corp. · filed 2000-09-01(c)

Although the bankruptcy court cannot formally decide non-core matters absent consent, see 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2), such matters can be heard in bankruptcy court and eventually decided by the district court, as occurred here, see 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). ... We therefore affirm the district court’s adoption of the International Nutronics approach and discern no barrier to the application of the doctrine of res judicata to this case.

Section 157(b)(2) does not make a state-law contract dispute a core proceeding when its connection to the bankruptcy case is weak.

Sun Healthcare Group, Inc. v. Levin (In Re Sun Healthcare Group, Inc.) · filed 2000-10-17(b)(2)

The Debtors counter that the issue is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2), specifically citing (A) administrative matters and (O) other proceedings affecting the estate. We conclude that the matter is non-core because of the weak nexus between the bankruptcy cases and the adversary proceeding.

Section 157(c) limits a bankruptcy court in a non-core, related proceeding to proposed findings and conclusions for the district court unless the parties consent to a dispositive ruling.

Diagnostic International, Inc. v. Aerobic Life Products Co. (In Re Diagnostic International, Inc.) · filed 2000-10-26(c)

In addition, in exercising jurisdiction over a non-core, related to proceeding, this Court cannot issue a dispositive ruling. The Court may only make proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law that must then be referred to the district court for consideration.

Section 157 treats claims that depend solely on state law and could proceed outside bankruptcy as non-core proceedings.

Miller Ex Rel. the Estate of Liberty Recovery Systems, Inc. v. Vigilant Insurance (In Re Eagle Enterprises, Inc.) · filed 2001-02-09(b)(2)

The claims of the Plaintiffs neither invoke rights provided by Title 11, nor claims which arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case. They depend solely on state law and could proceed outside the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear a related non-core proceeding, but without all parties’ consent it may submit only proposed findings and conclusions for the district court’s final judgment.

Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Cheshier & Fuller, L.L.P. (In Re Sunpoint Securities, Inc.) · filed 2001-04-23(c)(1)

A bankruptcy court may also hear a non-core proceeding that is otherwise related to a case under title 11 but, in the absence of the consent of all of the parties to the dispute, and notwithstanding the fact that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute as a unit of the district court, the bankruptcy court cannot exercise full judicial power to enter a final order or judgment in that non-core proceeding. It only possesses the power to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for review and consideration by the Article III district court, prior to the entry of a final order or judgment by the district court.

Section 157 treats a medical malpractice claim that relies on state law rather than bankruptcy law as a non-core proceeding.

Shirley v. McCraney · filed 2001-12-28

This lawsuit, removed to this court pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and transferred to the United States Bankruptcy Court is an adversary proceeding which falls squarely within the non-core category because it relies upon state law, without reference to bankruptcy law.

Section 157 permits bankruptcy courts to render final decisions in core proceedings but limits them to proposed findings and conclusions in non-core proceedings.

Koken v. Reliance Group Holdings, Inc. (In Re Reliance Group Holdings, Inc.) · filed 2002-02-22

The practical consequence of the distinction between core and non-core is this: in core matters, bankruptcy courts may render final decisions (28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1)); in non-core matters, bankruptcy courts make only proposed findings of fact and eonclu-sions of law for consideration by the district court (28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1)).

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear non-core claims related to a bankruptcy case and submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court for final judgment.

Browning v. Levy · filed 2002-03-12(c)(1)

NW’s claims against SSD, however, could have been raised in the bankruptcy court pursuant to the court’s limited jurisdiction over non-core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157 permits bankruptcy courts to hear core and related non-core proceedings, but not proceedings unrelated to a bankruptcy case.

Pesina v. Kreps (In Re Kreps) · filed 2002-03-21(b)(1), (c)(1)

As it pertains to these types of proceedings, this Court has been conferred with jurisdiction to hear both core and non-core, but related proceedings. 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(1) & 157(c)(1). Purely non-core proceedings, however, are outside the scope of this Court’s jurisdictional authority. ... As such, it is clear that the allegations raised in the third-party Complaint filed by Mr. Kreps are non-core proceedings over which this Court lacks jurisdiction.

Section 157(b) treats a disputed prepetition contract claim that exists independently of bankruptcy as non-core, even if its outcome may affect the estate.

Son v. Coal Equity, Inc. (In Re Centennial Coal, Inc.) · filed 2002-03-22(b)

Therefore, I find that although this proceeding is related to Debtors’ bankruptcy because of its potential effect on the estate, ... it does not constitute a core proceeding pursuant to § 157(b).

Section 157(b)(2) does not classify prepetition state law claims as core proceedings when they could have been brought independently of the bankruptcy case.

Hoffmeyer v. Loewen Group International, Inc. · filed 2002-03-20(b)(2)

The claims asserted herein constitute traditional state law causes of action sounding in tort, contract and property law which arose prior to the petition date. Plaintiffs’ claims depend in no way on an interpretation of the Bankruptcy Code and could have been brought prior to and independent of Debtors’ bankruptcy. As such, I find the instant proceeding to be non-core.

Section 157(c)(1) treats an action to collect a pre-petition account receivable under a pre-petition contract as a non-core proceeding.

Charter Behavioral Health System, LLC v. Managed Health Network, Inc. (In Re Charter Behavioral Health System, LLC) · filed 2002-05-03(c)(1)

For the reasons discussed below this is a non-core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). ... MHN asserts and we agree that this adversary proceeding is non-core since Charter’s action is to recover a pre-petition account receivable due for medical services rendered under the pre-petition Provider Agreement.

Section 157 treats this environmental action as non-core, although the action relates to the bankruptcy case.

G-I Holdings, Inc. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. (In Re G-I Holdings, Inc.) · filed 2002-05-21(b)

Although this court holds this environmental action is not a core proceeding, the action obviously does “relate to” the bankruptcy case.

Section 157(b)(2)'s list of core proceedings is nonexclusive, but a state-law insurance coverage action is non-core when it invokes no Title 11 right and could arise outside bankruptcy.

G-I Holdings, Inc. v. Reliance Insurance (In Re G-I Holdings, Inc.) · filed 2002-05-21(b)(2)

However, since § 157(b)(2) states that core proceedings “include, but are not limited to” the enumerated proceedings, the list therein is nonexclusive. ... The instant action also falls outside the additional bases for core jurisdiction. Under the first option, the coverage action does not assert a right provided by Title 11. The right to performance on an insurance agreement is grounded in state contract law. ... Additionally, with regard to the second option it cannot be said that the nature of this action could arise only in the context a Bankruptcy Case. ... Under Halper it is clear that the instant action is a non-core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(3) governs determining whether a bankruptcy proceeding is core or non-core.

Covanta Onondaga Ltd. v. Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency · filed 2002-08-13(b)(3)

Therefore, the district court must first consider whether the proceeding is core or non-core. ... this court finds that because the proceedings in the instant case duplicate those in Orion, i.e. a debtor instituted a pre-petition breach of contract action, and the defendant not filing a proof of claim or counterclaims against the bankrupt estate, it is also non-core.

Section 157(b)(2) treats proceedings to turn over estate property and matters concerning estate administration as core proceedings.

Control Center, L.L.C. v. Lauer · filed 2002-12-11(b)(2)

After analyzing Control Center’s Complaint and Lauer’s Counterclaim, this Court finds that only Control Center’s claim for conversion (Count V) falls within the core actions delineated in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). To the extent that Control Center seeks a return of the company’s portable computer and the confidential information contained on that computer, this action is equivalent to an action to turn over property of the bankruptcy estate. See § 157(b)(2)(E). Moreover, because the conversion claim seeks to obtain property of Control Center, the action necessarily involves a determination of the nature and extent of property in the company’s estate, a matter concerning the administration of the estate. See § 157(b)(2)(A).

For non-core proceedings, a bankruptcy court cannot deny a motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration when the parties do not dispute making an arbitration agreement.

Cooker Restaurant Corp. v. Seelbinder (In Re Cooker Restaurant Corp.) · filed 2003-03-31(b)

This Court finds that in non-core proceedings in which the parties do not dispute the making of an agreement to arbitrate, a bankruptcy court is without jurisdiction to deny a motion to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration.

Under § 157(b)(1), successor liability and alter ego claims against a nondebtor subsidiary are non-core when they do not concern estate assets or the debtor’s relationships with creditors or shareholders.

Official Committee of Asbestos v. G-I Holdings, Inc. (In Re G-I Holdings, Inc.) · filed 2003-05-13(b)(1)

This is a non-core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), because the successor liability and alter ego claims at stake are not claims against the assets of the estate, and they do not deal with the relationships between the Debtor and its creditors or its shareholder.

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

Krol v. Wilcek (In Re H. King & Associates) · filed 2003-06-23(c)(1)

The Court finds that Counts I, II and III of this adversary proceeding fall within the bankruptcy court’s non-core “related to” jurisdiction because a judgment in favor of the Trustee, if recovered, would bring assets into the estate, thereby increasing the pool available for distribution to creditors. ... Accordingly, the Court is required, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the District Court.

Section 157(c) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear a related non-core proceeding but requires party consent for the judge to enter a final judgment or order.

G.A.D. Inc v. Loyer · filed 2003-08-13(c)

The significance of whether a proceeding is core or non-core is that the bankruptcy judge may hear non-core proceedings related to bankruptcy cases but cannot enter judgments and orders without consent of all parties to the proceeding.

Section 157 permits bankruptcy judges to decide core proceedings, while non-core proceedings require district court decision after bankruptcy court recommendations.

Safeco Ins. Co. v. ADM/Farmland Ind. · filed 2003-08-15

Section 157 of Title 28 divides civil proceedings in a bankruptcy case into two categories: (1) core proceedings which may be decided by a bankruptcy judge, and (2) non-core proceedings which must be decided by the district court on review of recommendations from the bankruptcy court. ... Clearly, the dispute between ADM and Safeco is neither a case arising under nor arising in a case under title 11.

Section 157 treats proceedings that are merely related to a bankruptcy case as non-core proceedings.

C & B, L.L.C. v. Grubbs Emergency Services, Inc. (In Re Grubbs Construction Co.) · filed 2003-11-26(c)

Non-core proceedings, on the other hand, are merely “related to” the bankruptcy case. ... This is a non-core proceeding.

Section 157 limits a bankruptcy judge in a non-core, related proceeding to proposing findings and conclusions for de novo review by the district court.

Dayton Title Agency, Inc. v. Wright (In Re Dayton Title Agency, Inc.) · filed 2004-02-02(c)(1)

While this matter is “related to” the bankruptcy with a sufficient nexus for the court to find it has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334, it is a non-core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157. The court can only provide proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court for de novo review.

A party is not entitled to a jury trial in a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2) that could have been summarily decided under the former bankruptcy act.

Brown Ex Rel. Lorax Corp. v. Shepherd Ex Rel. Greenwall Liquidation Trust (In Re Lorax Corp.) · filed 2004-02-04(b)(2)

In sum, the court concludes that disputes which are core to the case under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) and which could have been summarily disposed of under the former bankruptcy act are subject to its equity jurisdiction, and a party to such a dispute is not entitled to a jury trial.

Section 157 treats the claims directly affecting the Chapter 12 debtors as core proceedings and the related claims against the nondebtor as non-core proceedings.

Norman v. Prestage Farms, Inc. (In Re Moore) · filed 2004-02-27(b)(2), (c)

The aspects of this cause of action which directly affect the Chapter 12 debtor/defendants would be considered collectively a core proceeding as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (B), and (0). Because of the direct impact upon the debtor/defendants, the aspects of this cause of action which seek relief against Prestage Farms would be considered collectively a “non-core” or “related” proceeding as contemplated by 28 U.S.C. § 157(c).

Section 157(b)(2) generally treats proceedings arising under Title 11 or arising in a Title 11 case as core; proceedings merely related to a bankruptcy case are generally non-core.

Barge v. Western Southern Life Insurance · filed 2004-03-30(b)(2)

Proceedings arising under Title 11 or arising in a case under Title 11 fall generally into the category known as core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). ... On the other hand, proceedings that are merely related to a bankruptcy case are generally considered to be non-core.

Section 157(b) core or non-core determinations do not apply the well-pleaded complaint rule once bankruptcy jurisdiction is established.

Conseco, Inc. v. Adams (In Re Conseco, Inc.) · filed 2004-12-08(b)

The rule applies only to the determination of whether the district court (or a bankruptcy court in its stead) has jurisdiction under § 1334. It does not apply to determinations under § 157(b) of whether an issue is core or non-core for purposes of entry of final judgment by bankruptcy courts.

Section 157(c)(1) treats proceedings related to a bankruptcy case, but not arising from it, as non-core proceedings.

Allen v. JK HARRIS & CO., LLC · filed 2005-10-12(c)(1)

Proceedings in a bankruptcy case that are not “core proceedings” are those that are “related to,” but do not arise from, a bankruptcy case. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) (“[a] bankruptcy judge may hear a proceeding that is not a core proceeding but that is otherwise related to a case under title 11”). ... Neither party appears to assert that the present proceeding is a core proceeding; rather, both parties seem to agree that the matter is non-core. Thus, it appears that the sixth element for mandatory abstention has been met.

In a non-core proceeding under § 157(c)(1), the bankruptcy court makes proposed findings and conclusions; the district court’s judgment after de novo review is the operative decision for appeal.

Reliance Insurance v. Colonial Penn Franklin Insurance · filed 2005-11-03(c)(1)

In Delaware the district court referred the matter to the bankruptcy court which considered it under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) and thus made proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law. Reliance filed objections to those findings and conclusions pursuant to Rule 9033 following which the district court on a de novo basis entered a final judgment adopting the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Consequently, the operative determination from which the parties have appealed is that of the district court and not the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(b) treats claims that do not depend on the Bankruptcy Code and reach bankruptcy court only because of a bankruptcy filing as non-core proceedings.

First Franklin Corp. v. Barkley (In Re Anthony) · filed 2005-12-08(b)

Indeed, the court is of the opinion that the trustee’s causes of action against First Franklin for predatory lending practices are not “core” proceedings since they do not depend on provisions in the Bankruptcy Code for their existence. Rather, they are “non-core” or “related” proceedings that would not be in this court but for the filing of the bankruptcy cases.

A proceeding is non-core under § 157 when it invokes no substantive right created by bankruptcy law and can exist independently of the bankruptcy case.

Ranch v. Lyman (In Re Gregory Rock House Ranch, LLC) · filed 2006-03-15(b)(2)

“Core” proceedings are proceedings which involve rights created by bankruptcy law, or which would only arise within a bankruptcy proceeding. ... At most, this adversary proceeding is a non-core proceeding over which the Court has related- to jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). The adversary proceeding does not invoke substantive rights created under the Bankruptcy Code, and, since the State Court Action was initiated well prior to the bankruptcy proceeding, can and did exist independent from the bankruptcy.

Section 157(c)(1) requires a bankruptcy court in a non-core proceeding to submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court for de novo review of specific written objections.

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. United Air Lines, Inc. · filed 2006-06-13(c)(1)

In non-core proceedings, i.e., cases that are not directly related to matters arising under Title 11, the bankruptcy court must submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). The district court then conducts a de novo review of the bankruptcy court’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to which a party has made a specific written objection.

Section 157(c)(1) limits a bankruptcy court hearing a non-core proceeding without consent to submitting proposed findings and conclusions to the district court.

In Re 4 Front Petroleum, Inc. · filed 2006-06-29(c)(1)

Absent consent, this Court’s non-core jurisdiction is limited to hearing the evidence and submitting proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the District Court.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a prepetition contract dispute that exists independently of bankruptcy as non-core even if its outcome may affect the estate.

C & A, S.E. v. Puerto Rico Solid Waste Management Authority (In re C & A, S.E.) · filed 2006-06-29(b)(2)

Actions “arising under” title 11 are referred to as “core” proceedings and are specifically referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) and “related to” actions are “non-core” proceedings. ... Therefore, this Court concludes that this is a non-core proceeding.

Section 157 treats claims as non-core when they do not arise only in bankruptcy or involve a right created by federal bankruptcy law.

Bremer Business Finance Corp. v. Dorsey & Whitney LLP (In Re SRC Holding Corp.) · filed 2006-08-28(b)(2)

Core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157 are those which arise only in bankruptcy or involve a right created by federal bankruptcy law. ... Although Bremer’s claim arises from the same transaction, its claims are not “core” proceedings.

Section 157 treats a TILA damages claim that can exist outside bankruptcy as non-core, even when it may affect the bankruptcy estate.

Rozell v. Citifinancial Auto Corp. · filed 2006-12-07(b)(2)(C)

Although the motion to value and objection to claim filed by debtors in the present case constituted core proceedings under § 157(b)(2)(C) as being in the nature of a counterclaim filed by the estate against a claim filed against the estate, the Court finds that debtors’ complaint for damages under TILA does not invoke a substantive right created by the Bankruptcy Code and is one that could exist outside bankruptcy. Although the action is related to the bankruptcy proceeding as being a matter which could conceivably have an effect on the estate, the action is not a core proceeding.

Section 157(c)(1) treats a proceeding that is merely related to a bankruptcy case as non-core.

Whiting-Turner Contracting Co. v. Electric Machinery Enterprises · filed 2007-02-23(c)(1)

While the determination of whether Whiting-Tuner actually owes EME part of the settlement proceeds that Whiting-Turner received from UCDP could affect EME's estate, actions that are merely related to a bankruptcy case are non-core proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). Therefore, because EME's claim against Whiting-Turner is only related to EME's bankruptcy, it is non-core and subject to arbitration.

Section 157(b)(2) does not classify a prepetition state law insurance coverage claim as core merely because it involves bankruptcy claims, an approved settlement, or a potential benefit to the estate.

Consolidated Swinc Estate v. Ace USA, Inc. (In Re Stone & Webster, Inc.) · filed 2007-05-04(b)(2)

At its root, this proceeding is a plain breach of contract claim governed by state law. ... For the reasons outlined above, the Court finds that this adversary proceeding is clearly non-core.

Section 157(c) permits bankruptcy judges to hear non-core proceedings only when they are related to a bankruptcy case; a dispute between nondebtors with no effect on the estate falls outside that authority.

GAF Holdings, LLC v. Rinaldi (In Re Farmland Industries, Inc.) · filed 2007-12-05(c)

Bankruptcy judges may also hear non-core proceedings that are otherwise related to a bankruptcy case. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c). ... The question we must decide is whether the complaint falls within the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over non-core matters related to Farmland’s bankruptcy case. We conclude that it does not.