28 U.S.C. § 157

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to submit proposed findings and conclusions in a core proceeding when the district court must enter the final judgment.

Ortiz v. Aurora Health Care, Inc. (In Re Ortiz) · filed 2012-02-03(c)(1)

Since the Court of Appeals indicated that only an Article III judge could issue a final order in this ease, this Court could use the procedures in § 157(c)(1) to issue proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration and entry of a final order by the District Court. ... This Court concludes that, notwithstanding the Seventh Circuit’s comment in its remand decision, it is procedurally appropriate to submit the following proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the District Court for de novo review.

Section 157(b)(1) allows a bankruptcy court to hear a core proceeding and submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court instead of entering a final judgment.

In re American Housing Foundation · filed 2012-02-10(b)(1)

Unlike subsection (c)(1), which accords the bankruptcy court no discretion, the plain text of subsection (b)(1) does not bar the bankruptcy court from hearing the case and proposing findings and conclusions.

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

City of Central Falls v. Central Falls Teachers' Union, Rhode Island Council 94, Local 1627 · filed 2012-03-23(c)(1)

The two counts in this proceeding are non-core matters that are otherwise related to the City’s bankruptcy case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), this court will hear the adversary proceeding and, at the conclusion, enter proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, subject to review and entry of final judgment by the district court as specified in § 157(c)(1) and related rules.

Section 157(c)(1) allows a bankruptcy judge to hear a non-core proceeding related to a title 11 case and requires proposed findings and conclusions for the district court, with the final order or judgment entered by the district judge.

O'Toole v. McTaggart (In Re Trinsum Group, Inc.) · filed 2012-04-09(c)(1)

Neither section 157(c)(1) nor Rule 9033 required that proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law be entered at the time the Court rendered the Opinion or when the Dismissal Order was entered.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear related proceedings and submit proposed findings and conclusions for district court review, even when the defendant has filed no proof of claim.

Sarachek v. Right Place, Inc. (In re Agriprocessors, Inc.) · filed 2012-07-12(c)(1)

This Court adopts this rationale and concludes, at a minimum, it has the authority to hear the matter and prepare proposed findings and conclusions.

Section 157(c)(1) requires a bankruptcy judge to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court in a non-core proceeding when the parties do not consent to a final judgment.

Mitchell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In re Mitchell) · filed 2012-07-20(c)(1)

Therefore, as a non-core proceeding in which Wells Fargo does not consent to the bankruptcy court’s issuing a final order, my decision in this matter will be submitted to the district court as proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) and Fed. R. Bankr.P. 9033.

Section 157 permits bankruptcy courts to submit proposed findings and conclusions in core proceedings when they lack authority to enter final judgments.

Ortiz v. Aurora Health Care, Inc. (In re Ortiz) · filed 2012-08-21(c)(1)

Thus, the fact that § 157 does not explicitly state that bankruptcy courts have authority to issue proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in core proceedings does not mean that bankruptcy courts are prohibited from doing so.

A bankruptcy court may hear a referred fraudulent transfer claim and submit proposed findings and conclusions, even when it cannot enter final judgment.

FTI Consulting, Inc. ex rel. Centaur, LLC Litigation Trust v. Merit Management Group, LP · filed 2012-07-24(c)(1)

So the bankruptcy court cannot enter a final judgment on the Trustee’s claims. This does not mean, however, that this court should not refer the case to the bankruptcy court: the bankruptcy court still may enter proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to issue proposed findings and conclusions in a core proceeding when it lacks constitutional authority to enter final judgment.

Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc.) · filed 2012-09-28(b)(1)

Accordingly, this Court, in line with most other district and bankruptcy courts, determines that the bankruptcy court here has the authority — “statutory and otherwise” — to issue a report and recommendation as to those claims for which it otherwise lacks the constitutional authority to enter final judgment.

Section 157(c)(1) does not require a bankruptcy court to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law when it denies summary judgment, because that denial is not a final order.

Sheehan v. Warner (In re Warner) · filed 2012-09-27(c)(1)

Because a denial of a summary judgment motion is not a final order, the court is not submitting proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Section 157(b)(1) allows bankruptcy courts to hear core fraudulent conveyance claims and submit proposed findings and conclusions to district courts when they cannot constitutionally enter final judgment.

Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison · filed 2012-12-04(b)(1)

In sum, § 157(b)(1) provides bankruptcy courts the power to hear fraudulent conveyance cases and to submit reports and recommendations to the district courts. Such cases remain in the core, and the § 157(b)(1) power to “hear and determine” them authorizes the bankruptcy courts to issue proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to propose findings of fact and conclusions of law in an avoidance action when it cannot enter final judgment.

Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (In re Madoff Securities) · filed 2013-01-04(b)(1)

Congress attempted to empower the Bankruptcy Court to “hear and determine” avoidance actions. This grant of broad power necessarily conferred on bankruptcy courts the lesser power of issuing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy judge to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in a core proceeding when Article III prohibits entry of final judgment.

Rothrock v. PNC Bank, N.A. (In re Parco Merged Media Corp.) · filed 2013-03-28(b)(1)

Consistent with the substantial weight of authority from those courts that have considered the “statutory gap” question, this Court concludes that a bankruptcy judge may submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in a core proceeding when Article III prohibits the entry of final judgment.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to hear a core proceeding and issue proposed findings and conclusions when it lacks constitutional authority to enter final judgment.

Carr v. Loeser (In re International Auction & Appraisal Services LLC) · filed 2013-06-04(b)(1)

Bankruptcy courts may “hear and determine all cases under title 11 and all core proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in a ease under title 11.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1). ... I join these courts and conclude that I may hear the Trustee’s Amended Complaint and issue findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to propose findings of fact and conclusions of law in a core proceeding when Article III prevents it from entering a final judgment.

GTCR Golder Rauner, LLC v. Scharrer (In re Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc.) · filed 2013-11-19

This Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction — conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and 28 U.S.C. § 157 — is sufficient authority for this Court (particularly in light of the district court’s standing order of reference) to propose findings of fact and conclusions of law regardless of whether these proceedings are determined to be “core.”

Section 157(c) requires de novo review of a bankruptcy judge’s proposed findings only for matters to which a party timely and specifically objects.

Messer v. Peykar International Co. (In re Fine Diamonds, LLC) · filed 2014-04-11(c)

Similarly, § 157(c) of the Bankruptcy Code mandates de novo review only of “those matters to which any party has timely and specifically objected.”

Section 157(c)(1) requires a bankruptcy court to submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court for a related, noncore claim when the parties have not consented to a final order by the bankruptcy court.

DeGiacomo v. Raymond C. Green, Inc. (In re Inofin Inc.) · filed 2014-06-12(c)(1)

Accordingly, this Court is required to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the United States District Court with respect to Count V as RCG did not consent to the entry of a final order by this Court on that count.

Section 157(b)(2)(H) lists fraudulent conveyance actions as core proceedings, but a bankruptcy court may treat such a count as noncore and issue proposed findings under Arkison.

Safanda v. Castellano (In re Castellano) · filed 2014-08-06(b)(2)(H)

Under the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Exec. Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2165, 189 L.Ed.2d 83 (2014), the Court will treat the fraudulent conveyance count as if it were a noncore matter, even though 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H) lists fraudulent conveyance actions as core proceedings.

Section 157(c)(1) governs related claims that a bankruptcy court cannot finally decide, allowing it to submit proposed findings for district court review.

Educational Credit Management Corp. v. Pulley · filed 2015-04-30(c)(1)

Considering the Court’s conclusion in part “A., i” that Pulley’s equitable estoppel claim is one that is “related to” her bankruptcy case, the Court concludes that the claim fits comfortably within the category of claims governed by § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to submit proposed findings and conclusions in a related noncore proceeding for the district court to review.

New York Skyline, Inc. v. Empire State Building Co. · filed 2015-10-20(c)(1)

... I am unaware of any case, controlling or otherwise, that has held that a bankruptcy court lacks authority under section 157 to issue proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law when jurisdiction is otherwise proper. Accordingly, I will treat the Bankruptcy Court’s Electricity Decision, Protocol Decision, and Stay Decision — as defined below — as proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and will treat the parties’ appellate briefs as the objection, response, and reply, respectively, to the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

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

Gavin v. Tousignant (In re Ultimate Escapes Holdings, LLC) · filed 2016-02-23(c)(1)

Once. a bankruptcy court determines that a pending matter is not a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2), but is nonetheless related to a case under title 11, it shall submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court.

Section 157(c) requires a bankruptcy court to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in a noncore proceeding related to a bankruptcy case when the parties have not consented to final adjudication.

Penobscot Valley Hospital v. Carranza, in her capacity as administrator for the · filed 2020-06-03(c)

It is not a core proceeding and the SBA has not provided consent beyond that relating to section 525. As a result, the Court is constrained to issue proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(c).

Section 157(c) requires a bankruptcy court to submit proposed findings and conclusions in a related, noncore proceeding when the parties have not consented to final adjudication.

Calais Regional Hospital v. Carranza, in her capacity as administrator for the · filed 2020-06-03(c)

It is not a core proceeding and the SBA has not provided consent beyond that relating to section 525. As a result, the Court is constrained to issue proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(c).

Section 157(c) requires a bankruptcy court to submit proposed findings and conclusions on a noncore claim when the parties have not consented to final adjudication by that court.

Breda, a Limited Liability Company v. Carranza, in her capacity as administrator for the · filed 2020-06-22(c)

Because the Plaintiff’s APA claim is not a core proceeding and the SBA has not consented to this Court’s adjudication of that claim, the Court is constrained to submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court on that claim.

Section 157(c) permits a bankruptcy court that cannot enter final judgment on a proceeding to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court.

Kraz, LLC v. Branch Banking & Trust Company · filed 2023-01-24(c)

When a bankruptcy court has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a proceeding but not the constitutional authority to finally adjudicate it, the bankruptcy court may enter proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (or the district court may treat the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law as proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law).

Section 157(c)(1) does not require a bankruptcy court to submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court when it resolves related third-party claims as part of plan confirmation.

Boy Scouts of America and Delaware BSA LLC v. · filed 2025-05-13(c)(1)

True, the Bankruptcy Court did not submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the District Court for final determination. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). But doing so is not necessary where, as here, a bankruptcy court exercises its related-to jurisdiction as part of the plan confirmation process.

Section 157(c)(1) calls for a bankruptcy judge to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court in a noncore proceeding when a party does not consent to final adjudication.

Patmon · filed 2026-06-02(c)(1)

Because the proceeding involving the Agrifund Claims is not a core proceeding and Sandhills does not consent to this Court’s jurisdiction, the Court will be submitting proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear a related noncore claim and submit proposed findings and conclusions for de novo review by the district court.

Galaz v. Galaz (In Re Galaz) · filed 2014-08-25(c)(1)

Because Lisa’s claim is “related to a case under title 11,” 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), the bankruptcy court may still hear it and “submit ... proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court for de novo review and entry of judgment.” Executive Benefits, 134 S. Ct. at 2173. ... Accordingly, the district court’s judgment on Lisa’s TUFTA claim must be vacated and remanded for de novo review of the bankruptcy court’s decision as recommended findings and conclusions.

Withdrawal of an adversary proceeding under § 157(d) does not displace the Bankruptcy Rules; Rule 7013 continues to govern counterclaims in district court.

In Re Merritt Logan, Inc. · filed 1990-01-16(d)

It argues, though, in a footnote to its memorandum, at 8 n. 2, and in greater detail its reply memorandum, that the bankruptcy rules lost applicability once the adversary proceeding was withdrawn by the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). ... I conclude that the procedure which governed the district court’s resolution of the adversary proceeding involving the debtor and Fleming included Bankr.R. 7013 and not Fed.R.Civ.P. 13.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a district court to remand a withdrawn core claims dispute to the bankruptcy judge for proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. Pan Am Corp. (In Re Pan Am Corp.) · filed 1991-11-21(c)(1)

This Court hereby orders that PBGC’s claims and the Debtors’ objections be withdrawn from the bankruptcy court under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), and remanded to Bankruptcy Judge Blackshear for the submission of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(d) permits a district court to decline withdrawal of the reference after a final confirmation order when it is reviewing the same issues on appeal.

In Re Dow Corning Corp. · filed 2000-11-13(d)

Once core proceedings become final, withdrawing the reference would be without cause. ... The Court will not exercise both its original and appellate jurisdiction to review the issues raised in the same order.

A party seeking withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference under § 157(d) must file the motion with the bankruptcy court clerk under the applicable filing rules.

Gerou · filed 2025-12-18(d)

Although a district judge (an Article III judge) must hear a motion to withdraw the reference, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 5011, a motion to withdraw the reference under 28 U.S.C. §157(d) “must be filed with the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court,” who then “will transmit the motion, all responses to the motion, and all replies to the Clerk of the District Court, who will assign a district court case number to the matter.” ... Because the plaintiffs did not follow the bankruptcy court’s procedural rules, the court will deny the plaintiff’s motion to withdraw the reference and it will dismiss this case.

Section 157(d) makes timeliness integral to a request to withdraw the bankruptcy reference, and the district court may raise timeliness on its own.

US Trustee v. Homa · filed 2022-02-24(d)

As the Defendants point out, the Court may very well bring up timeliness on its own, especially in cases of this nature where the Court has to decide where withdrawal of reference is appropriate. Timeliness is integral to that determination.

Section 157(d) requires a motion for permissive withdrawal of the bankruptcy reference at the first reasonable opportunity; a motion filed seven days after a jury demand can be timely.

Grandy v. Fox Hills Industries, Inc. (In Re Chemetco, Inc.) · filed 2004-04-08(d)

The Court finds that the seven-day interval between the jury demand and the filing of the motion for withdrawal falls well within the boundaries of acting at the first reasonable opportunity.

Section 157(d) requires a party seeking withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference to move at the first reasonable opportunity after learning the grounds for withdrawal.

Consolidated Industries Corp. v. Welbilt Holding Co. · filed 2000-01-05(d)

A party seeking withdrawal of the reference must make a “timely motion” to do so. 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). ... Thus, “the test for timeliness of a motion to withdraw reference is either as soon as possible, or at the first reasonable opportunity after the moving party has notice of the grounds for withdrawal, depending on the facts of each case.”

Section 157(d) requires a timely motion for mandatory withdrawal of the bankruptcy reference, even when the proceeding raises federal securities law claims.

Davis v. Mahlmann (In Re Mahlmann) · filed 1993-01-07(d)

However, the presence of securities laws claims in no way waives the timeliness requirement of § 157(d).

Section 157(d) requires even a mandatory withdrawal motion to be filed as soon as possible after the grounds for withdrawal become clear.

In Re Stavriotis · filed 1990-01-24(d)

This court holds that Wilkes Barre’s motion is not timely. It was not filed “as soon as possible” after the grounds for withdrawal became clear. Since even the mandatory withdrawal provision of § 157 requires a timely motion, this court denies the motion to withdraw the reference.

Section 157(d) requires a timely motion for mandatory withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference; a motion filed over six months after the grounds became apparent is untimely.

Laine v. Gross · filed 1991-06-26(d)

Section 157(d) provides for mandatory withdrawal only “on timely motion of a party.” ... The Court finds, therefore, that the motion for withdrawal of the reference, filed over six months after the alleged necessity for it became apparent, is untimely.

Section 157(d) measures the timeliness of a motion to withdraw a bankruptcy reference from the filing of the complaint or when the grounds for withdrawal first become apparent.

United States v. Kaplan · filed 1992-10-19(d)

Timeliness is assessed from the time a complaint is filed or from the time the grounds for withdrawing the complaint first become apparent.

Section 157 sets no specific time limit for seeking withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference, but prejudicial tactical delay can justify denying the request.

Lone Star Industries, Inc. v. Rankin County Economic Development District (In Re New York Trap Rock Corp.) · filed 1993-09-13(d)

There is no specific time limit for applications under 28 U.S.C. § 157 to withdraw a reference to the bankruptcy court, or for motions addressed to either the district or Bankruptcy Court to transfer cases for convenience under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Delay for tactical reasons, prejudicial to the adversary or to the administration of justice, can be grounds for denying such an application.

Section 157(d) requires a timely motion to withdraw the bankruptcy reference; a motion filed promptly after the circumstances prompting it arise can satisfy that requirement.

Official Employment-Related Issues Committee of Enron Corp. v. Lavorato (In Re Enron Corp.) · filed 2004-10-20(d)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), the district court may withdraw the reference of an adversary proceeding on “timely” motion of any party, for cause shown. Under the circumstances of this proceeding, the Employment Committee timely filed its motion.

Section 157(d) requires a timely motion to withdraw a bankruptcy reference; a motion filed eighteen years into proceedings that are near closure is untimely.

Nielsen v. Miller · filed 2005-02-22(d)

We do not need to reach the question of whether this case raises the kinds of issues that would otherwise require withdrawal to the district court, because we agree that a motion for withdrawal filed eighteen years after bankruptcy proceedings are instituted—especially when those bankruptcy proceedings are on the “brink of closure”—is not timely.

Section 157(d) requires a party to seek withdrawal of a bankruptcy proceeding promptly once the basis for withdrawal is apparent.

Growe v. Bangor Hydro-Electric Co. (In Re Great Northern Paper, Inc.) · filed 2005-02-28(d)

Thus, I measure its diligence from the filing of the Trustee’s November 3, 2004 complaint that raised the claim as to which Bangor Hydro-Electric wants to raise its FERC defense. It should have raised the section 157(d) motion in response to that complaint, rather than waste the bankruptcy court’s time with other issues and engender unnecessary delay.

Section 157(d) permits a party to seek withdrawal of the reference to obtain a district court jury trial; failing to seek withdrawal timely may waive the jury trial right.

HA2003 Liquidating Trust v. J.P. Morgan Partners (SBIC), LLC (In Re HA-LO Industries, Inc.) · filed 2005-06-03(d)

A party may waive its right to a jury trial by failing to move timely to withdraw the reference.

A motion to withdraw a bankruptcy reference under § 157(d) must be filed within a reasonable time under the circumstances.

Eide v. Haas (In Re H & W Motor Express Co.) · filed 2006-05-01(d)

The court holds that the test for timeliness is ultimately one of reasonableness under the circumstances.

Section 157(d) requires a party to move to withdraw a bankruptcy reference as soon as grounds for withdrawal are known.

Reding v. Gallagher (In Re Childs) · filed 2006-05-15(d)

In sum, Gallagher was obligated to file a motion to withdraw the reference as soon as grounds for withdrawal were known.

Section 157(d) requires a timely motion to withdraw a bankruptcy proceeding from the bankruptcy court; an unexplained delay of almost five years is untimely.

Gredd v. Bear, Stearns Securities Corp. (In Re Manhattan Investment Fund Ltd.) · filed 2006-05-31(d)

By its plain language, 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) requires that motions to withdraw be “timely.” Thus, even if we were to accept that Bear Stearns is now raising new arguments, Bear Stearns would have to satisfactorily explain why it has waited almost five years to argue for withdrawal of Counts I and IV. ... We thus find that untimeliness provides an alternative basis to reject Bear Stearns’ motion.

A motion to withdraw the bankruptcy reference under § 157(d) was timely when the parties moved promptly after Stern supplied a basis for withdrawal.

Development Specialists, Inc. v. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP · filed 2011-11-02(d)

Thus, the timeliness of this motion should be evaluated by looking to how promptly the Firms moved for withdrawal following Stem. On this premise, I believe even DSI concedes the motion is timely. The Firms and DSI entered discussions on Stem’s impact shortly after it was issued. When it became clear they could not agree on whether the reference should be withdrawn, the Firms promptly moved this Court for relief.

Section 157(d) requires a party seeking discretionary withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference to move at the first reasonable opportunity after learning the grounds for withdrawal.

Chowdhury v. Hansmeier · filed 2019-02-21(d)

Although the statute does not define timeliness in this context, courts generally construe the timeliness requirement to mean that a party seeking withdrawal must file a motion "as soon as practicable" or "at the first reasonable opportunity after the moving party has notice of the grounds for withdrawal, depending on the facts of each case." ... Because Appellants' motion to withdraw the reference to the bankruptcy court is untimely, the motion is denied.

Section 157(d) requires a timely motion to withdraw a bankruptcy reference; motions filed weeks or months after the grounds were clear are untimely.

In Re: Teresa A. Reynolds · filed 2021-04-16(d)

Therefore, the Court concludes that the Motions are untimely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) and Local Bankruptcy Rule 5011.

Section 157(d) requires a timely motion to withdraw a bankruptcy reference; a motion filed after nearly a year of litigating the referred proceeding is untimely.

In Re: Wansdown Properties Corporation N.V. · filed 2021-09-29(d)

While the timing of 29 Beekman’s decision here seems to be prompted largely by gamesmanship, its motion also fails because it is untimely.

Section 157(d) requires a party seeking withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference to make a timely motion.

29 Beekman Corp. v. Blank Rome · filed 2021-09-29(d)

While the timing of 29 Beekman’s decision here seems to be prompted largely by gamesmanship, its motion also fails because it is untimely.

Section 157(d) requires a timely motion to withdraw a bankruptcy reference; a party may be too late after months of litigating the same issues in bankruptcy court.

Wansdown Properties Corporation N.V. v. 29 Beekman Corp. · filed 2021-09-29(d)

While the timing of 29 Beekman’s decision here seems to be prompted largely by gamesmanship, its motion also fails because it is untimely.

Section 157(d) allows a district court to raise the timeliness of a motion to withdraw the bankruptcy reference on its own.

US Trustee v. Buch · filed 2022-02-24(d)

As the Defendants point out, the Court may very well bring up timeliness on its own, especially in cases of this nature where the Court has to decide where withdrawal of reference is appropriate. Timeliness is integral to that determination.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause shown and requires a motion to withdraw reference to be timely.

In Re: Shirley Foose McClure · filed 2022-12-15(d)

As a threshold matter, the court must consider whether the party moved to withdraw the reference in a timely manner as required by 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

Section 157(d) requires a party to seek withdrawal of the bankruptcy reference promptly in light of developments in the proceeding.

Davis v. Winnick · filed 2023-09-19(d)

In this case, the Court finds that Defendant did not file the Motion to Withdraw Reference “as promptly as possible in light of the developments in the bankruptcy proceeding.” ... Thus, the Court finds that Defendant's Motion is untimely.

Section 157(d) requires a timely motion to withdraw a bankruptcy reference; a motion made nearly five months after notice of the grounds for withdrawal is untimely.

Maria Elizabeth Montero Leon v. Montero · filed 2025-12-15(d)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), withdrawal is either mandatory or permissive. ... A motion to withdraw is timely if it was made “as promptly as possible in light of the developments in the bankruptcy proceeding.” ... Therefore, Defendant did not move for this Motion as promptly as possible and the Motion is untimely.

Section 157(d) requires a court assessing the timeliness of a renewed motion to withdraw a bankruptcy reference to consider the current stage of the bankruptcy proceeding.

Guallini-Indij v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico · filed 2026-03-04(d)

When presented with the Guallinis' second motion for withdrawal, the district court should have considered the present status of proceedings in the bankruptcy court (i.e., that the pre-trial proceedings prolongedly shepherded by the bankruptcy court had yet to conclude).

A party’s motion to withdraw a bankruptcy reference under § 157(d) is untimely after the bankruptcy case closes.

Banda & Jones v. Tang · filed 2026-03-17(d)

Once the bankruptcy case is closed, the district court proceeds under its appellate jurisdiction, and any motion to withdraw the reference is untimely.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) allows a bankruptcy judge to hear and decide a breach of contract action arising from a post-petition contract approved in bankruptcy.

Bennett Three Leasing Services, Inc. v. Consolidated Medical Transport, Inc. (In Re Consolidated Medical Transport, Inc. · filed 2003-10-17(b)(2)(A)

Breach of contract actions arising out of a post-petition contract approved in bankruptcy are core matters that can be heard and decided by a bankruptcy judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a debtor’s postpetition claim for unpaid rent under a lease guaranty as a core matter concerning administration of the estate.

Edgewater Cove Associates, L.P. v. May Department Store Co. (In re Edgewater Cove Associates) · filed 1999-11-09(b)(2)(A)

The claim against May arose, not as of the retroactive effective date of Caldor’s rejection of its obligations under the lease, but as of the date payments from Caldor ceased. As long as Edgewater was receiving rent payments from Caldor, it had no claim to assert against May. Consistent with the applicable precedents in this circuit, therefore, the court determines that this proceeding is a core matter under § 157(b)(2)(A) (“Core proceedings include but are not limited to — (A) matters concerning the administration of the estate.”).

A proceeding concerning the validity of a lease created during a bankruptcy case and approved by the bankruptcy court is a core proceeding arising in that case.

Pinnacle Corp. v. Long-Term Capital Management, L.P. (In Re Pinnacle Corp.) · filed 1999-07-22(b)

It is determined that this is a core proceeding because it arose in this case. That is, the gravamen of the proceeding involves the validity of a lease which was created during this bankruptcy case and became viable by this court’s March 4, 1997 order which approved it.

Section 157(b)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to treat claims arising from a debtor-in-possession’s substantial postpetition performance of a prepetition contract as core proceedings when that performance administers and liquidates estate assets.

Hughes-Bechtol, Inc. v. Construction Management, Inc. (In Re Hughes-Bechtol, Inc.) · filed 1991-09-27(b)(2)

Although the court recognizes that this proceeding possesses the third characteristic of a non-core proceeding, in that some of the causes of action asserted by the debtor would exist independent of the provisions of title 11, it is otherwise a core proceeding because an entity, the debtor-in-possession, which came into existence only during the administration of a bankruptcy estate (§ 157(b)(2)(A)), continued and concluded a construction contract using estate assets, including assets subject to a court approved cash collateral order, while receiving the protection of the automatic stay, in an attempt to liquidate assets of the estate (§ 157(b)(2)(0)) and is, thus, entitled to obtain a determination of the rights and obligations of the parties and of the estate (§ 157(b)(2)(E)) as a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats state-law contract claims as core proceedings when the contract was entered into after the bankruptcy petition was filed.

In Re Ben Cooper, Inc. · filed 1990-02-07(b)(2)(A)

We hold, therefore, that the bankruptcy court has core jurisdiction, pursuant to Sec. 157(b)(2)(A), over contract claims under state law when the contract was entered into post-petition.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) gives bankruptcy courts core jurisdiction over state-law contract claims when the contract was entered into after the bankruptcy petition.

Ben Cooper, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania (In re Ben Cooper, Inc.) · filed 1990-02-07(b)(2)(A)

We hold, therefore, that the bankruptcy court has core jurisdiction, pursuant to § 157(b)(2)(A), over contract claims under state law when the contract was entered into post-petition.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) gives bankruptcy courts core jurisdiction over state-law contract and lease claims when the contract or lease was entered into post-petition.

In Re Baker · filed 1990-08-13(b)(2)(A)

This court has core jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), over contract and lease claims under state law when the contract or lease was entered into post-petition.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) does not make a claim for post-petition breach of a pre-petition contract core merely because the breach occurred after filing; substantial post-petition dealings with the estate are needed.

National Enterprises, Inc. v. Roger Partnership, Ltd. (In Re National Enterprises, Inc.) · filed 1991-06-26(b)(2)(A)

The fortuitous occurrence of an alleged breach of contract post-petition — standing alone — should not render the estate’s action to collect damages for that breach a core proceeding. Where, as here, it is clear that the contract underlying the claim is a pre-petition contract that contemplated neither dealing with a bankrupt estate nor consenting to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court, some affirmative interaction between the non-debt- or contracting party and the estate must exist for the matter to be considered a core action, subject to the full panoply of the bankruptcy court’s power.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a dispute over a post petition breach of a post petition contract as a core proceeding concerning estate administration.

Allied Stores Corp. v. Federal Insurance Co. (In Re Federated Department Stores, Inc.) · filed 1992-08-05(b)(2)(A)

Although the tax liabilities arose from the Debtor’s 1986 and 1987 tax years, the insurance contract was entered into post petition. The Settlement Agreement which effected the Debtor’s loss was entered into post petition, and Federal’s disclaimer of coverage was a post petition event. This is clearly an allegation of a post petition breach of a post petition contract, and as such is a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) covers disputes over post-petition contracts governed by state law as core proceedings in administering a bankruptcy case.

G.B.G., Inc. v. Kolinsky (In re Kolinsky) · filed 1992-09-18(b)(2)(A)

Because the instant proceeding involves issues under contracts under state law which were entered into in the post-petition period, it follows that applicable law in the Second Circuit renders this post-petition dispute uniquely a 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) core proceeding in the administration of this case.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats breach of a contract entered into after the bankruptcy petition as a core proceeding.

Agri-Concrete Products, Inc. v. Fabcor, Inc. (In Re Agri-Concrete Products, Inc.) · filed 1993-04-07(b)(2)(A)

This Court finds that the better and more pragmatic approach and the one that gives the most meaning to the statutory authority for core jurisdiction found at 28 U.S.C. § 157 is to follow In re Ben Cooper, supra, and those cases cited therein holding that actions for breach of contracts entered into post-petition are core proceedings.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a dispute over a post-petition insurance policy as a core proceeding when recovery under the policy is integral to the debtor’s reorganization.

Northwestern Institute of Psychiatry, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co. (In Re Northwestern Institute of Psychiatry, Inc.) · filed 2001-08-29(b)(2)(A)

Having reviewed the relevant extant case law on this subject, I conclude on these facts that the Coverage Issue is a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(A) since the policy was issued to the debtor-in-possession post-petition and the recovery under that policy is integral to the Debt- or’s ability to reorganize under Chapter 11.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) allows bankruptcy judges to hear and decide breach-of-contract actions arising from post-petition contracts approved in bankruptcy as core proceedings.

Bennett Three Leasing Services, Inc. v. Consolidated Medical Transport, Inc. (In Re Consolidated Medical Transport, Inc. · filed 2002-07-18(b)(2)(A)

Breach of contract actions arising out of a post-petition contract approved in bankruptcy are core matters that can be heard and decided by a bankruptcy judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b) treats claims to avoid or recover prebankruptcy transfers under the Bankruptcy Code as core proceedings.

In re Gandy · filed 2002-07-22(b)

All of these claims to avoid or recover pre-bankruptcy transfers are "core proceedings" arising under Title 11, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157. These claims are created by the Bankruptcy Code and are not — outside of bankruptcy — available to Debtor.

Section 157(b) can treat claims for post-petition breaches of pre-petition contracts as core proceedings when their recovery is integral to the bankruptcy estate.

D & B Swine Farms, Inc. v. Murphy-Brown, L.L.C. (In Re D & B Swine Farms, Inc.) · filed 2010-01-23(b)

In this case, after full review, the court concludes that the alleged post-petition breaches of the Nursery and Finishing Agreements are core matters within the jurisdiction of this court.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats proceedings to enforce a bankruptcy debtor’s post-petition contracts as core proceedings.

In Re Tyson · filed 2010-07-26(b)(2)(A)

The Adversary Proceeding fell within the Bankruptcy Court’s core jurisdiction. At least two reasons for this conclusion are evident. First, proceedings to enforce a bankruptcy debtor’s post-petition contracts fall within core bankruptcy jurisdiction.

Section 157(b)(1) authorizes bankruptcy judges to hear and determine core proceedings arising from postpetition contracts with the bankruptcy estate.

Blackjewel Liquidation Trust v. Kopper Glo Mining, LLC · filed 2022-11-23(b)(1)

Matters that arise in a case also are statutorily core under § 157(b)(1).

Section 157’s designation of a matter as a core proceeding does not confer jurisdiction when the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies.

In Re Zambre · filed 2004-03-01(b)(2)(B) and (K)

Nor does the fact that this matter is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) and (K) afford the Court jurisdiction when the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is applicable.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a bankruptcy court’s determination of a debtor’s tax liability under 11 U.S.C. § 505(a) as a core proceeding.

French v. United States (In Re French) · filed 1999-09-09(b)(2)

A determination of a debtor’s tax liability under 11 U.S.C. § 505(a) involves a right afforded to a debtor by virtue of the Bankruptcy Code, and is therefore a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(2) does not limit bankruptcy court jurisdiction to disputes involving property of the debtor’s estate.

Betty Owen Schools, Inc. v. United States Department of Education (In Re Betty Owen Schools, Inc.) · filed 1996-04-24(b)(2)

Clearly, bankruptcy courts have jurisdiction over property of the debt- or’s estate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). However, it does not follow that the bankruptcy courts’ jurisdiction is only limited to property of the estate.

Section 157(b)(1) allows a bankruptcy court to hear and determine a core proceeding only if it arises under title 11 or arises in a title 11 case.

Rajala v. Guaranty Bank & Trust (In Re United Fruit & Vegetable, Inc.) · filed 1996-01-12(b)(1)

For a bankruptcy court to have core jurisdiction over a proceeding, i.e., to be authorized to hear and determine it, the proceeding must “arise under title 11” or “arise in a title 11 case.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

Section 157’s core-proceeding categories do not themselves give a bankruptcy court subject matter jurisdiction over a post-confirmation adversary proceeding.

Neptune World Wide Moving, Inc. v. Schneider Moving & Storage Co. (In Re Neptune World Wide Moving, Inc.) · filed 1990-03-27(b)(2)

The fact that Neptune’s adversary proceeding might be characterized as core does not mean that this court retains subject matter jurisdiction to hear it after confirmation and after the determination of Neptune’s objections to the defendants’ claims.

Section 157(b)(2)'s list of core proceedings does not independently grant bankruptcy courts subject matter jurisdiction.

Spaulding & Co. v. Buchanan (In Re Spaulding & Co.) · filed 1990-09-27(b)(2)

Contrary to Mr. Buchanan’s argument (see Appellant’s Brief at 17-18), the list of examples of core proceedings in 28 U.S.C. Section 157(b)(2) does not provide an independent source of jurisdiction to hear Mr. Buchanan’s third-party complaint.

Section 157 does not independently grant subject matter jurisdiction; a court lacking jurisdiction under § 1334 need not decide whether a proceeding is core.

Official Creditors' Committee of Products Liability & Personal Injury v. International Insurance Co. (In Re Pettibone Co · filed 1992-01-27

Since jurisdiction is lacking under 28 U.S.C. § 1334, there is no need to address whether “core” jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). This is because § 157 is not an independent source of jurisdiction.

Section 157(a) makes a bankruptcy court’s authority derivative of the district court’s authority, so the bankruptcy court cannot hear a dispute outside the district court’s jurisdiction.

In Re ARE Mfg. Co., Inc. · filed 1992-04-02(a)

Because this Court derives its authority from the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) (1988), it adopts the rule set forth in Caddell and Metric Systems and dismisses the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 157(a) makes a bankruptcy court’s authority derivative of the district court’s authority, limiting the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction where the district court lacks jurisdiction.

A.R.E. Manufacturing Co. v. United States (In re A.R.E. Manufacturing Co.) · filed 1992-04-02(a)

Because this Court derives its authority from the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) (1988), it adopts the rule set forth in Caddell and Metric Systems and dismisses the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 157 treats the disposition of a motion for judgment on the pleadings challenging bankruptcy jurisdiction as a core proceeding.

Lathrop v. Meyer (In Re Lathrop) · filed 1985-05-31

The disposition of the present Motion For Judgment on the Pleadings constitutes a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157(b)(2)’s nonexclusive list of core proceedings is read broadly to include matters closely tied to a bankruptcy liquidation.

Cotton v. Shirah (In Re All American of Ashburn, Inc.) · filed 1985-06-05(b)(2)

A broad reading of the nonexclusive list of core proceedings found at 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) comports with the congressional intent to adjudicate such matters “inextricably tied to the bankruptcy proceeding” in the Bankruptcy Courts.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a proceeding as core when it concerns administration of the bankruptcy estate and affects the debtor-creditor relationship.

Elsinore Shore Associates v. New Jersey Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control (In Re Elsinore Shore Associates) · filed 1986-04-02(b)(2)(A), (O)

The controversy presently before this court is whether the enforcement of N.J.Admin.Code tit. 13, § 2-24.4 (1984) against the debtor violates 11 U.S.C. §§ 105, 362(a) and 525. Such a case falls squarely within 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (0) since it concerns the administration of the debtor’s estate and affects the debt- or-creditor relationship.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear non-core matters subject to district court review, so their possible presence alone does not justify withdrawing the reference.

American Tobacco Companies v. Chaitman (In Re Candy Braz, Inc.) · filed 1986-04-21(c)(1)

Moreover, even if non-core matters are involved, 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) authorizes the bankruptcy court to hear them, subject to review by the district court. Therefore, the possible existence of non-core matters is an insufficient reason for withdrawal of the reference.

Section 157(b) treats allowance or disallowance of claims against a bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding that the bankruptcy court may determine.

Federal Trade Commission v. Evans Products Co. · filed 1986-04-22(b)(2)(B)

Here, the Florida bankruptcy court, when ruling on the FTC’s claim, was dealing with a core matter. Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2), “core proceedings include, but are not limited to ... (B) allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate_” A bankruptcy court may determine all core proceedings arising under Title 11. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1). As the Florida bankruptcy court properly adjudicated the FTC’s claim for monetary damages, this Court will not allow the FTC to relitigate the issue here.

Section 157(b)(2) permits bankruptcy courts to hear and determine claim objections and related counterclaims as core proceedings, even when some issues require state or other federal law.

Davidson v. Limerick (In Re Answerfone, Inc.) · filed 1986-04-25(b)(2)

The trustee’s proposed amended objection is an objection to a claim and asserts a counterclaim for damages and a setoff of an alleged preferential transfer against any allowed amount of the defendant’s claim. These types of matters were specifically designated by Congress as core proceedings which a bankruptcy court may hear and determine. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), (C), and (H). The fact that some of the issues raised will be determined by reference to state law or federal non-bankruptcy law does not, standing alone, defeat the court’s jurisdiction.

Section 157(b) allows a bankruptcy judge to hear and decide a referred equitable-subordination proceeding classified as core and enter appropriate orders and judgments.

Ambassador Riverside Investment Group v. Namer (In Re Ambassador Riverside Investment Group) · filed 1986-04-28(b)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(C) treats an estate’s counterclaim against a person who filed a claim against the estate as a core proceeding, even if the counterclaim arises under state law.

Jefferson National Bank v. I.A. Durbin, Inc. (In Re I.A. Durbin, Inc.) · filed 1986-04-29(b)(2)(C)

Durbin’s case is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(C).

A proceeding’s core status under § 157 does not prevent abstention, and its non-core status does not require abstention.

Elegant Concepts, Ltd. v. Kristiansen (In Re Elegant Concepts, Ltd.) · filed 1986-04-30(b)(2)

But whether or not the pending action is a “core proceeding” is not, in the view of this Court, decisive with respect to the issue of abstention. ... The fact that a matter may be a core proceeding does not preclude abstention where such abstention is otherwise appropriate. Equally, that a matter is non-core does not mandate abstention.

Section 157 treats a claim against the bankruptcy estate arising under the Bankruptcy Code as a core proceeding.

Liona Corp. v. PCH Associates (In Re PCH Associates) · filed 1986-05-15(b)(2)(A)

Since the case at bar involves a claim against the estate and the claim arose under the Code, it is clear that this case is a core proceeding and must be reviewed as such.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a motion to dismiss a Chapter 11 case as a core proceeding.

In Re Morris Plan Co. of Iowa · filed 1986-06-06(b)(2)(A)

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

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy judge to decide removal, remand, abstention, and transfer motions as core proceedings concerning administration of the estate.

General Instrument Corp. v. Financial & Business Services, Inc. (In Re Finley) · filed 1986-06-10(a), (b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(O)

This Court concludes that issues of removal, remand, abstention, or transfer are “proceedings” within the meaning of Section 157(a). These are matters “concerning the administration of the estate” pursuant to Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O), and are core matters.

Section 157(b) permits a bankruptcy court to finally determine an objection to an administrative expense claim as a core proceeding.

In Re National Automatic Sprinkler Co. of Oregon, Inc. · filed 1986-06-11(b)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats a request for payment of an administrative expense as a core proceeding.

In Re Intran Corp. · filed 1986-06-18(b)(2)(B)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(B) and (O) classify this proceeding as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

McLemore v. Olson (In Re B & L Laboratories, Inc.) · filed 1986-06-23(b)(2)(B), (O)

This is a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(B), (O) (1982 ed., Supp.II 1984).

Section 157(b)(2)(C) treats an estate’s counterclaim against a creditor who filed a proof of claim as a core proceeding.

Bedford Computer Corp. v. Ginn Publishing, Inc. · filed 1986-07-16(b)(2)(C)

The bankruptcy judge further ruled that nothing contained in the decision in Northern Pipeline Construction v. Marathon Pipeline Company, 458 U.S. 50, 102 S.Ct. 2858, 73 L.Ed.2d 598 (1982), required a different result and that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(C) ... the adversary proceeding before him was a “core proceeding” over which he had “core” jurisdiction. For reasons hereinafter detailed, this Judge concurs in such ruling.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) treats an involuntary bankruptcy adjudication and the debtor’s related counterclaim as core proceedings.

In Re Garland Coal & Mining Co. · filed 1986-07-18(b)(2)(A), (O)

The Court has jurisdiction over the adjudication proceeding and counterclaim which are both core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (O).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) and (E) covers claim allowance and turnover of estate property as core bankruptcy proceedings.

McDonald v. Manning (In re Perret) · filed 1986-08-22(b)(2)(B), (E)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(A), (B), and (O) each authorize a bankruptcy judge to resolve a dispute over the scope of a court-approved stipulation fixing an administrative claim against the estate.

Kranzdorf v. Alter (In re Fidelity America Financial Corp.) · filed 1986-08-28(b)(2)(A), (B), (O)

The essence of the controversy at bench is the scope of a stipulation approved by us which fixed the size of the administrative claim against the estate. We hold that § 157(b)(2)(A), (2)(B) and (2)(0) each provide us with an independent basis for resolving the matter at hand.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) and (O) treats a request to determine the amounts needed to cure defaults, reinstate a mortgage, and compensate creditors under a Chapter 11 plan as a core proceeding.

Matter of Arlington Village Partners, Ltd. · filed 1986-09-04(b)(2)(B) and (O)

This is a case arising under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a) and having been referred to this court is determined to be a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) and (O) in which the debtor-in-possession, movant, Arlington Village Partners, Ltd. (hereinafter Arlington), requests an order of the court determining the total amount it must pay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1124(2) to Harold H. Singer and Sol S. Kling, creditors and respondents (hereinafter Singer and Kling, respectively), to cure the defaults, reinstate the maturity, and compensate for other damages in connection with a second mortgage due Singer and Kling.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) allow a bankruptcy court to enter a final order in a core proceeding to enjoin a creditor’s suit against a guarantor when that suit could affect estate administration and the debtor–creditor relationship.

Gathering Restaurant, Inc. v. First National Bank of Valparaiso (In Re Gathering Restaurant, Inc.) · filed 1986-09-16(b)(2)(A), (O)

28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) lists examples of “core proceedings” in which the Bankruptcy Court may enter a final order. ... These sections are very broad and it is clear that the outcome of the suit on the guaranty versus the guarantor by the defendant could effect the administration of the debtor’s estate and the debtor — creditor relationship between the debtor and the defendant. ... For these reasons, the Court holds that this adversary proceeding is a core proceeding and that the Court can issue a final order.

Section 157(b) permits a bankruptcy court to hear and determine a core proceeding.

Willis v. North Fork Bank & Trust Co. (In re Willis) · filed 1986-09-29(b)

Because of the subject matter of this proceeding, the Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). It is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (G) permits a bankruptcy court to hear and determine core proceedings.

In re Shucart · filed 1986-10-22(b)(2)(A), (G)

This is a “core proceeding” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (G), which the Court may hear and determine.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to hear and determine core proceedings involving estate property and foreclosure relief.

B & B Enterprise v. Bank of Perryville (In Re B & B Enterprise) · filed 1986-10-30(b)(2)(A), (O)

This is a “core proceeding” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (0), which the Court may hear and determine.

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

In re Kielhafner · filed 1986-10-31(b)(2)

These are “core proceedings” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (E), (F), (G), (K), and (M), which the Court may hear and determine.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (H) treats proceedings involving an exemption objection and a fraudulent transfer complaint as core proceedings.

Ernst v. O'Brien (In Re O'Brien) · filed 1986-11-14(b)(2)(A), (H)

Additionally, this is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (H).

Section 157(b)(2) treats a debtor’s adversary proceeding seeking money for the estate as a core proceeding when it concerns estate administration, claim estimation, or turnover of estate property.

Ermco Erectors, Inc. v. Owen Steel Co. (In Re Ermco Erectors, Inc.) · filed 1986-12-21(b)(2)

28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) says that matters concerning the administration of the bankruptcy estate are core proceedings. In this case, the resolution of the subject claims by the debtor concerns money the estate will have to operate its business and pay creditors. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) says that estimation of claims or interests for the purposes of confirming a plan is a core proceeding. In this case, the debtor is seeking to estimate claims and interests amounting to millions of dollars — among the largest claims and interests in the estate. No plan can be confirmed without such an estimation. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E) says that orders to turn over property of the estate are core proceedings. In this case, the debtor seeks to compel Owen Steel to turn over large sums of money. Finally, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0) says that other proceedings affecting the adjustment of the debtor creditor relationship are core proceedings. Each of the cited subparagraphs cover this adversary proceeding. Therefore, the court finds that this matter is a core proceeding.

Section 157 treats matters directly related to administration of the estate as core proceedings.

In re Besenbruch-Hoffman of Puerto Rico, Inc. · filed 1987-01-20(b)(2)(A)

The instant matter is classified as a core proceeding issue, since it relates directly with the administration of the estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) and (K) treats proceedings concerning claims and liens as core proceedings in which the bankruptcy court may enter final judgment.

Sanders v. Stephens Security Bank (In Re Sanders) · filed 1987-01-21(b)(2)(B), (b)(2)(K)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (E) permits a bankruptcy court to hear and determine a core proceeding seeking turnover of property.

Bryn Athyn Investors, Ltd. v. Hutton/Conam Realty Pension Investors (In Re Bryn Athyn Investors, Ltd.) · filed 1987-01-22(b)(2)(A) and (E)

This is a “core proceeding” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (E), which this court may hear and determine.

Section 157 excludes a sheriff’s claim against a judgment creditor for poundage fees from core bankruptcy proceedings.

McMahon v. Nourse (In Re McMahon) · filed 1987-01-29

However, a final, binding determination in this regard is best left to the courts of New York state, as the relief sought by Reardon in his cross-claim against Nourse falls outside of those “core” proceedings set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 157. The Court simply does not have jurisdiction to assess responsibility for the poundage fees except to determine that neither Debtor nor the Trustee has such responsibility.

Section 157(b)(3) bars deciding whether a proceeding is core solely because state law may affect its resolution; a trustee’s mortgage foreclosure to recover estate assets can be a core proceeding.

Craig v. McCarty Ranch Trust (In re Cassidy Land & Cattle Co.) · filed 1987-01-30(b)(3)

Further, any determination that a proceeding is or is not a core proceeding is not to 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 finds these proceedings to be core proceedings, directly related to the adjudication of the bankruptcy and equitable in nature, fully within the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a dispute over the disposition of improvements to estate property as a core proceeding.

Jackson Tanker Corp. v. Hartz Mountain Industries, Inc. (In Re Jackson Tanker Corp.) · filed 1987-02-06(b)(2)

Jackson’s conveyance of the property to ATIR pursuant to the court-approved joint venture, did not remove subject matter jurisdiction from this Court since Jackson owned the property as of the commencement of the Chapter 11 case and continued to retain a legal and equitable interest in the joint venture after the conveyance. This is a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), 157(b)(2)(E), 157(b)(2)(0).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats an objection to a proof of claim as a core proceeding.

In Re Cohoes Industrial Terminal, Inc. · filed 1987-02-06(b)(2)(B)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(G) allows a bankruptcy court to hear and determine a motion for relief from the automatic stay as a core proceeding.

In Re Louden · filed 1987-02-09(b)(2)(G)

This is a “core proceeding” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G), which the Court may hear and determine.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) covers this trustee’s preference recovery proceeding as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Harrison v. United Liberty Life Insurance (In Re H & S Transportation Co.) · filed 1987-02-17(b)(2)(A)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats a trustee’s action seeking turnover of a debtor’s property interest as a core proceeding.

Stein v. Zarling (In Re Zarling) · filed 1987-02-20(b)(2)(E)

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

Section 157 classifies a trustee’s proceeding under Bankruptcy Code § 544 challenging a lien’s perfection as a core proceeding.

Navarro v. International Business MacHines Corp. · filed 1987-02-20

This proceeding is a core proceeding under Section 544 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157 treats a motion to convert a Chapter 11 case to Chapter 12 as a core proceeding that a bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

In Re Ray · filed 1987-02-23(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(O)

This is a “core proceeding” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (O), which the Court may hear and determine.

Section 157(b)(2)(M) treats a motion to assume an unexpired lease as a core proceeding.

In Re A. Tarricone, Inc. · filed 1987-02-24(b)(2)(M)

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

Section 157(b)(2) authorizes a bankruptcy court to hear and determine core proceedings.

In re Kielhafner · filed 1987-02-24(b)(2)

This is a “core proceeding” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (D), (M), and (O), which the Court may hear and determine.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a dispute over a debtor’s property sale contract and the purchaser’s deposit as a core proceeding.

In Re Schenck Tours, Inc. · filed 1987-02-10(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(N), (b)(2)(O)

This is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (N) and (O).

Section 157(b)(2)(C) does not automatically make a state-law rescission claim a core proceeding when the debtor presents it as a counterclaim to a creditor's claim.

Turner v. Ferrin (In Re Turner) · filed 1987-02-25(b)(2)(C)

In certain cases, where the issues of a post-petition action may involve application of state law, the action may still be a core proceeding. I do not find such overwhelming facts in this case. In other words, the matter can and should be resolved in state court, and from that action, will spring whatever Plan of Reorganization can be feasibly proposed by the Debtors.

Section 157(b)(2)(F) treats proceedings to determine, avoid, or recover preferences as core proceedings in which the bankruptcy court may enter final judgment.

Langenkamp v. Moore (In Re Republic Financial Corp.) · filed 1987-02-26(b)(2)(F)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F), this proceeding seeking “to determine, avoid, or recover preferences” is a core proceeding. Therefore, this Court may enter a final judgment in the action and may decide whether there is a right to a jury.

Section 157 does not treat an indemnity action against nondebtor indemnitors as a core proceeding when it is not integral to bankruptcy adjudication.

Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Mahaney (In Re Watson-Mahaney, Inc.) · filed 1987-03-03(b)(2)

Likewise, Safeco's indemnity action is not integral to the adjudication of bankruptcy and is not a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157.

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

In Re Waits · filed 1987-03-04(b)(2)(A)

This court agrees with the majority’s reasoning which treats a motion for a transfer of venue as a core matter, concerning the administration of the estate under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) which is heard pursuant to the district court’s order of reference under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats objections to bankruptcy claims as core proceedings.

In Re Greene · filed 1987-03-04(b)(2)(B)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(G) treats a proceeding for relief from the automatic stay as a core proceeding.

Rusiski v. Pribonic (In Re Pribonic) · filed 1987-03-05(b)(2)(G)

This is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G).

Section 157(b)(2)(G) makes a proceeding for relief from the automatic stay a core proceeding that a bankruptcy judge may hear and determine.

In Re Miller Development Corp. of Louisiana · filed 1987-03-06(b)(2)(G)

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

Section 157(b)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to hear and determine a core proceeding seeking to delay a secured creditor’s foreclosure.

ML Barge Pool VII Partners-Series a v. United States, Department of Transportation Maritime Administration (In Re ML Bar · filed 1987-03-11(b)(2)

This is a “core proceeding” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (N), and (0), which the Court may hear and determine.

Section 157(b)(1) does not make related state-law claims core proceedings merely because they arise from the same transaction as core claims.

M.S v. Inc. v. Bank of Boston-Western Massachusetts, N.A. (In Re Martin Specialty Vehicles, Inc.) · filed 1987-03-11(b)(1)

Related proceedings do not become core proceedings solely by virtue of the fact that they arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as core proceedings. These causes of action are without question “related” proceedings and therefore cannot fall within the scope of core proceedings.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a determination of a bankruptcy estate’s CERCLA liability and its extent as a core proceeding.

In Re Peerless Plating Co. · filed 1987-03-12(b)(2)

These illustrations make it clear that the determination of the estate’s liability under CERCLA and the extent of that liability, if any, is a core matter.

A state-law claim brought by or on behalf of a debtor is noncore if it does not fall within the specific core categories in § 157(b)(2)(B)–(N).

Stanger v. Athos Steel Aluminum, Inc. (In Re Athos Steel & Aluminum, Inc.) · filed 1987-03-16(b)(2)

Based on my understanding of Marathon and subsequent Supreme Court decisions interpreting its holding, I conclude that proceedings which involve a cause of action created solely by state law, brought by or on behalf of the debtor, and which do not otherwise fall within the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B)-(N), are noncore matters.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats a motion to extend the time to file a proof of claim as a core proceeding.

Matter of Century Brass Products, Inc. · filed 1987-03-17(b)(2)(B)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(J) treats an objection to discharge as a core proceeding that a bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

Butler v. Ingle (In Re Ingle) · filed 1987-03-17(b)(2)(J)

This is a “core proceeding” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(J), which this court may hear and determine.

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear and determine a proceeding to avoid a judicial lien as a core proceeding.

Green v. Snow (In Re Snow) · filed 1987-03-17(b)(1)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a proceeding to preserve a bankruptcy trustee’s control of estate operations as a core proceeding concerning administration of the estate.

Garrity v. Leffler (In Re Neuman) · filed 1987-03-18(b)(2)(A)

Further, because the request for a stay seeks to preserve the status of Garrity as operator of SRN, the proceeding encompasses “matters concerning the administration of the estate,” an explicit example of a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157 treats a proceeding to determine the dischargeability of a debt as a core proceeding.

Gellenbeck v. Tomsic (In Re Tomsic) · filed 1987-03-19

No objections were made by the parties to the jurisdiction of this Court and the Court finds this is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats objections to a debtor’s claimed exemptions as core proceedings.

In Re Raymond · filed 1987-03-20(b)(2)(B)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) do not make collection of a debtor’s account receivable a core proceeding merely because it affects estate assets or administration.

Gstalder v. Seward (In Re P & P Oilfield Equipment, Inc.) · filed 1987-03-20(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(O)

These sections are § 157(b)(2)(A) and (O). ... The collection of an account receivable is simply not a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats determination of claims as a core proceeding whether the claims arise under state or federal law.

In Re Ronald Perlstein Enterprises, Inc. · filed 1987-03-23(b)(2)(B)

Determination of claims are “core proceedings,” irrespective of whether the claims arise under state or federal law.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) treats a proceeding to determine the dischargeability of a particular debt as a core proceeding.

Bank of Utah v. Auto Outlet, Inc. (In Re Auto Outlet, Inc.) · filed 1987-03-25(b)(2)(I)

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

Section 157(b) covers this adversary proceeding as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Park North Partners, Ltd. v. Park North Associates (In Re Park North Partners, Ltd.) · filed 1987-03-26(b)

The Court finds this matter to constitute a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to hear and determine core proceedings, including matters concerning administration of the estate and dischargeability of debts.

Webb v. Soval (In Re Soval) · filed 1987-03-26(b)(2)(A), (I)

This is a “core proceeding” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (I), which the Court may hear and determine.

Section 157(b)(2)(F) and (H) treat preference and fraudulent-conveyance proceedings as core proceedings that a bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

Boone v. Marlatt (In Re Day Telecommunications, Inc.) · filed 1987-03-10(b)(2)(F), (H)

This is a “core proceeding” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F) and (H), which this court may hear and determine.