28 U.S.C. § 157

Section 157(c)(1)'s de novo review does not apply to civil contempt arising from a core turnover proceeding.

In Re Duggan · filed 1991-11-15(c)(1)

As we have seen, Section 105(a) contains a clear grant of contempt powers to the bankruptcy court, so that contempt in a core proceeding such as this turnover proceeding is not subject to de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) (1988) and Rule 9033.

Section 157(b)(1) does not treat a proceeding as core when it invokes no substantive federal bankruptcy law and could arise outside a bankruptcy case.

Seale v. Owens · filed 1991-11-26(b)(1)

The court finds that this matter is not a core proceeding over which the bankruptcy court would have full judicial power. This action was filed in the state court prior to the plaintiff/debtor having filed her bankruptcy petition. Thus, this proceeding does not invoke substantive federal bankruptcy law, nor is it a proceeding which could arise only in a bankruptcy case.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a Chapter 7 trustee’s auction sale of estate assets as a core proceeding concerning estate administration and liquidation.

Tolz v. Brothers Truck Sales, Inc. (In re Cole & Stevens Roofing Co.) · filed 1991-11-26(b)(2)

It is quite clear to this Court that the conduct of an auction sale by a Chapter 7 Trustee, in this case TOLZ, through the auctioneer whom she employed with authorization of this Court, after appropriate notice as required under the Bankruptcy Code and Rules, is a core proceeding relating to the administration of the Chapter 7 estate and the liquidation of the estate’s assets. The Court finds this proceeding to be core.

Section 157(b)(2)(H) treats a fraudulent conveyance action under § 544(b) as a core proceeding even when the trustee relies on state law.

Pate v. Hunt (In Re Hunt) · filed 1991-11-27(b)(2)(H)

Furthermore, even though a trustee utilizes state law to invoke § 544(b), a fraudulent conveyance action under § 544(b) falls within the scope of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H) as a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(C) treats refund claims brought as counterclaims as core proceedings.

Ledgemere Land Corp. v. Town of Ashland (In Re Ledgemere Land Corp.) · filed 1991-12-03(b)(2)(C)

The refund claims are also core proceedings as counterclaims under § 157(b)(2)(C).

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to decide as a core matter whether to void a post-petition eviction action that violated the automatic stay.

Republic Health Corp. v. Coral Gables, Ltd. (In Re Reph Acquisition Co.) · filed 1991-12-17(b)(1)

It arose under title 11 because the complaint stated a claim for violation of the automatic stay. The bankruptcy court therefore had authority to decide as a core matter whether to void the post-petition, pre-confirmation eviction action.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) permits a bankruptcy court to treat a dispute between creditors as a core proceeding when resolving it affects claims against the estate and the debtor-creditor relationship.

Emerson v. Marty (In re Mark Benskin & Co.) · filed 1991-12-23(b)(2)(A), (O)

However, the parties treated this entire trial as a core proceeding, and the resolution of the dispute between Campos and Marty will affect claims against this estate and does affect “the adjustment of the debtor-creditor ... relationship.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (O).

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy judge to hear and enter final judgment in an action to enforce 11 U.S.C. § 506(c) because it is a core proceeding.

In Re Parque Forestal, Inc., Debtor. Appeal of Oriental Federal Savings Bank · filed 1992-01-13(b)(1)

A proceeding under that statute manifestly fell within federal subject matter jurisdiction and was a “core proceeding,” so as to permit the bankruptcy court to act on its own.

Section 157(b)(1) treats a proceeding to determine the bankruptcy estate’s interest in property as a core proceeding.

In Re Becker · filed 1992-02-03(b)(1)

For the following reasons, it is the opinion of this court that an action to determine the interests of a bankruptcy estate in property is a core proceeding.

Section 157 treats proceedings concerning modification of the automatic stay and determination of lien validity, extent, and priority as core proceedings.

Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Nemko, Inc. (In Re Nemko, Inc.) · filed 1992-01-15(b)(2)(G) and (K)

Inasmuch as the accounts receivable are valuable assets of the Debtor, and the issue before this Court concerns itself with the modification of the automatic stay and the determination of the validity, extent, and priority of liens on the Debtor’s assets, this Court finds that the matter falls within the Court’s “core jurisdiction” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G) and (K) and Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7001(2).

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to enter a final sanctions order as a core proceeding when the sanctioned conduct concerns estate administration and affects liquidation of estate assets.

In the Matter of Memorial Estates, Incorporated, Debtor. Appeal of Cemco, Incorporated, William L. Needler · filed 1992-02-26(b)(1), (b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(O)

The district court found that Cemco’s attorney filed the motion at issue in Memorial Estates’ bankruptcy case, a “case under the code,” and that the sanction itself was a “core” proceeding in which the bankruptcy court could enter a final order pursuant to § 157(b)(1) and (2). The court noted that the attorney's conduct “concem[ed] the administration of the estate” and “affect[ed] the liquidation of the assets of the estate” in violation of § 157(b)(2)(A) and (O). We agree with the district court’s reasoning.

Section 157(b)(2) includes claim allowance and debt dischargeability among core proceedings, and its list of core proceedings is not exhaustive.

Townsend v. Townsend (In Re Townsend) · filed 1992-03-06(b)(2)

Core proceedings include the allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate, determinations as to the dischargeability of particular debts and objections to discharges. Section 157(b)(2) is not limiting in the scope of a bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction of core proceedings.

Section 157 treats determining the beneficiaries and distribution of a constructive trust held by the estate as a core proceeding.

Canal Corp. v. Finnman (In re Johnson) · filed 1992-03-26(b)(2)

The finding of a constructive trust by the bankruptcy court and a determination of the proper distribution of that trust are intimately tied to the traditional bankruptcy functions and estate, and, therefore, are core matters within the clear jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(b)(2)(O) treats a dispute over proceeds held in escrow to complete a bankruptcy estate sale as a core proceeding affecting liquidation of estate assets.

Braas Systems, Inc. v. WMR Partners (In Re Octagon Roofing) · filed 1992-04-03(b)(2)(O)

This dispute over the Escrow is the second step in the sale of the Plant, and the Escrow itself was set up as a necessary means for consummating the sale for the benefit of the estate and its creditors. This is a “core proceeding” under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0) which provides, in pertinent part, that core proceedings include “proceedings affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate.”

Section 157(b)(2) treats a dispute requiring interpretation of a bankruptcy court’s prior orders in core proceedings as a core proceeding.

Bannister Bank & Trust v. City Management Co. (In re AmerEco Environmental Services, Inc.) · filed 1992-04-06(b)(2)

Resolution of the dispute requires reference back to prior orders of this Court rendered in core proceedings. Accordingly, this action is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(2) treats a motion to change venue as a core proceeding.

Wittes v. Interco Inc. (In Re Interco Inc.) · filed 1992-04-13(b)(2)

Further, a venue motion is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (0).

Section 157(c) limits bankruptcy judges in non-core related proceedings to proposed findings and conclusions for district court review unless the parties consent.

In Re Shattuc Cable Corp. · filed 1992-04-16(c)

Section 157(c) provides that (unless the parties consent otherwise) the bankruptcy judge may hear a non-core proceeding only if it is “otherwise related to a case under title 11.” The bankruptcy judge’s role in such a proceeding is limited to the submission of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court, which then undertakes de novo review of such proposals to ensure compliance with Article III.

Section 157 classifies a proceeding involving claims arising before and after a bankruptcy filing as core when most of the events giving rise to the claims occurred after filing.

Hughes-Bechtol, Inc. v. Construction Management, Inc. · filed 1992-05-07(b)(2)

The outcomes of those cases support a conclusion that where the preponderance of the events giving rise to the causes of action has occurred postpetition, the proceeding is properly characterized as a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a final attorney fee application in a dismissed bankruptcy case as a core proceeding.

In Re Fox · filed 1992-05-15(b)(2)

Accordingly, this is a core proceeding as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(2) permits bankruptcy judges to issue injunctions in core proceedings, including enforcement of the automatic stay, but does not make another court’s interpretation of that stay a core proceeding.

In Re Mahurkar Double Lumen Hemodialysis Catheter Patent Litigation · filed 1992-05-28(b)(2)

Bankruptcy judges possess authority, by a combination of 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2), to issue injunctions in core proceedings. Enforcement of the automatic stay against fresh litigation or the continuation of old litigation on the merits is a core proceeding. ... But extension of the statute to forbid any other court from cogitating the meaning of § 362, and proceeding to the extent that statute allows, is not a core proceeding.

Section 157 treats a post-confirmation state-law contract claim that was not part of the confirmed plan as a non-core proceeding.

Coastal Petroleum Corp. v. Second Medina Corp. (In Re Coastal Petroleum Corp.) · filed 1992-06-03(b)(1)

Briefly stated, this breach of contract action is a non-core proceeding and was not addressed as a provision in the confirmed plan.

Section 157(b)(2)(L) treats approval of a disclosure statement as a core proceeding because it is integral to plan confirmation.

In Re Batten · filed 1992-06-10(b)(2)(L)

This is a Core Proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 157(b)(2)(L). Although the approval of a disclosure statement is not expressly designated as a core proceeding under the Code, it is an integral part of the plan confirmation process.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) makes dischargeability determinations core proceedings, but a complaint to reduce the debt to judgment is not itself a core proceeding.

Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v. Marlar (In Re Marlar) · filed 1992-06-17(b)(2)(I)

A determination of whether a debt is dischargeable is a core proceeding pursuant to section 157(b)(2)(I). ... A determination of non-discharge-ability, however, is not the equivalent of reducing a debt to judgment. A complaint to reduce a debt to judgment, filed in the Bankruptcy Court, would not, for example, constitute a core proceeding.

Section 157 does not treat a dispute over funds outside the bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding when their disposition cannot affect estate administration.

United States v. Lewis (In Re Lewis) · filed 1992-07-14

I conclude that the dispute between the IRS and the debtor is neither a core proceeding nor a related proceeding. Since the funds are not property of the estate, their disposition cannot affect the debtor’s freedom of action or have any impact on the handling and administration of the estate.

Section 157(b)(2) gives a non-exhaustive list of core bankruptcy proceedings.

Mona v. Citizens Bank & Trust Co. of Maryland · filed 1992-08-05(b)(2)

The Bankruptcy Code defines core proceedings only by example. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) (1988). That section contains a non-exhaustive listing of proceedings affecting the bankrupt estate which are deemed to be core.

Section 157(c) allows a bankruptcy judge to hear a related non-core proceeding, but without the parties' consent the district court must make the final decision.

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

While the bankruptcy court could not make a final decision in a non-core proceeding, absent the consent of the parties, it could hear the matter and refer it to the district court. Through its bankruptcy jurisdiction, the district court could decide the claim, allowing for a correct adjustment of the relations between all of the parties. Therefore, a confirmed plan in a bankruptcy case may operate to bar both core and non-core proceedings.

Section 157 treats a tax liability dispute as a core proceeding when its resolution affects the confirmed plan and the debtor-creditor relationship.

Kreidle v. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (In Re Kreidle) · filed 1992-08-20(b)(2)(O)

Moreover, proceedings affecting liquidation of the estate’s assets or the adjustment of the debtor-creditor relationship are included in the bankruptcy code’s non-exclusive list of core proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0). Assessment and collection of a tax liability that relates to a pre-petition or pre-confirmation tax year will affect the validity of the Plan’s confirmation, and therefore the issue is core.

A turnover action seeking to retrieve assets of the bankruptcy estate is a core proceeding.

Continental Airlines, Inc. v. First Security Bank of Utah, N.A. (In Re Continental Airlines, Inc.) · filed 1992-08-25(b)(2)

Using the rational of Delaware and Hudson, the court finds that the Debtors’ turnover action is core because it deals with the retrieval of assets of the estate.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to treat abandonment of property and release of guarantors under a binding settlement agreement as core proceedings.

Wachovia Bank of Georgia, N.A. v. Apex Tech of Georgia, Inc. · filed 1992-09-09

In sum, once the Bankruptcy Court ruled that a binding agreement existed between the parties, the Bankruptcy Court’s decision to treat as core proceedings the abandonment of the property and the release the guarantees was a proper, efficient, common sense approach and well within the Bankruptcy Court’s jurisdiction.

Claims against a non-debtor corporate officer are non-core when a judgment against that officer would not directly adjust the relationship between the debtors and their creditors.

Global Underwriting Management, Inc. v. Chatham Underwriting Management, Inc. · filed 1992-09-22(b)(2)

This action does not fit within the categories of core proceedings defined by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). The claims of Chatham, Adeline and Northern are asserted essentially against Griffiths individually. Any judgment against Griffiths, a non-debtor, would not directly determine or adjust the relationship of the debtors to their creditors. Where, as here, claims are asserted against an individual, non-debtor who is the shareholder and president of the debtor corporation, the action is considered non-core.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a post-petition dispute over a settlement agreement affecting administration of the bankruptcy case as a core proceeding.

Croton River Club, Inc. v. Half Moon Bay Homeowners Ass'n (In Re Croton River Club, Inc.) · filed 1992-09-24(b)(2)(A)

Because the instant proceeding involves a state law issue relating to a contract, the stipulation and amended stipulation settling the state court action brought by HOG, entered into in the post-petition period, 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) treats a proceeding as core when the asserted claim would not exist absent the bankruptcy case.

Roberts v. Mock (In re McFadyen) · filed 1992-09-30(b)(2)

Section 157(b)(2) attempts to shed light upon the distinction between “core” and “non-core” proceedings by providing a non-exhaustive list of “core” proceedings. ... Consequently, this proceeding would not exist absent the bankruptcy code and must be considered a “core” proceeding to which mandatory abstention rules are inapplicable.

State law contract claims can be noncore under § 157 and subject to mandatory abstention under § 1334(c)(2).

Baldwin Park Inn Associates v. City of Baldwin Park (In Re Baldwin Park Inn Associates) · filed 1992-10-22(b)(2)

Moreover, the Court finds that mandatory abstention pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2) by the bankruptcy court is required in this case, because pursuant to In re Castlerock Properties, 781 F.2d at 162, these state law contract claims do not constitute “core” proceedings in bankruptcy, and there is no evidence that the action cannot be timely adjudicated in the state court.

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to decide whether to dismiss a Chapter 11 petition as a core proceeding.

Kenneth E. Martensen Mary L. Martensen v. United States Trustee · filed 1992-10-27(b)(1)

A proceeding to dismiss a Chapter 11 petition is a "core proceeding." ... A bankruptcy court's dismissal of a Chapter 11 petition is authorized by statute and is within the court's limited jurisdiction.

Section 157(b)(2) does not make a trustee’s state-law contract claim a core proceeding when adjudicating it does not require federal bankruptcy power.

Hackeling v. Rael Automatic Sprinkler Co. (In Re Luis Electrical Contracting Corp.) · filed 1992-10-29(b)(2)

Because the federal bankruptcy power is in no way required for the adjudication of the Trustee's first cause of action, and the action clearly does not arise under title 11 nor falls within any of the listed core proceedings in section 157(b)(2), (quoted in full supra at note 1), the Court holds that it is a noncore proceeding.

Section 157(b) treats a proceeding to resolve a debtor’s unadjudicated tax liability as a core proceeding when the IRS files a proof of claim and a complaint in bankruptcy court.

United States of America Internal Revenue Service v. Edwin Paul Wilson, and John W. Guinee, Jr., Trustee-Appellee · filed 1992-10-29(b)

In this case, Wilson’s claim in the tax court had not been adjudicated before commencement of the bankruptcy proceeding, and the IRS’s proof of claim and complaint filed in bankruptcy court to recover the amounts assessed properly invoked the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court to resolve Wilson’s tax liabilities. Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b), and more specifically under 11 U.S.C. § 505(a)(1), this claim constituted a core proceeding within the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction.

Section 157’s core-proceeding category excludes a state-law conspiracy claim that could arise outside bankruptcy, even if the claim is based partly on a wrongful bankruptcy filing.

Sarno v. Thermen · filed 1992-11-17(b)(2)

Accordingly, previously unasserted claims can be barred by res judicata only if they would have been core proceedings in bankruptcy court. ... In this case, it is clear that Sarno’s State law conspiracy claim, although based in part on the wrongful filing, would not have been a core proceeding in bankruptcy.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats motions for abstention and transfer of venue as core proceedings even when the underlying adversary proceeding is non-core.

Couri v. Fisher (In Re JCC Capital Corp.) · filed 1992-11-30(b)(2)(A)

While this adversary proceeding is a non-core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), the instant motions for abstention, made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1), and transfer of venue, made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and 1412, are core proceedings in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b) permits a core proceeding to remain before the bankruptcy court.

Orion Pictures Corp. v. Showtime Networks, Inc. (In Re Orion Pictures Corp.) · filed 1992-12-14(b)(1), (b)(2)

Showtime claims that the adversary proceeding was not a “core” matter over which the bankruptcy court was granted jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), (2). This question was decided by Judge Keenan in the context of a motion to withdraw the reference, see supra; Judge Keenan correctly determined that the matter was in fact a “core” proceeding properly left to the bankruptcy court.

Under § 157(b)(2), enforcement of child support arrearage against a debtor may be a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Lawson v. Lackey (In Re Lackey) · filed 1992-12-18(b)(2)

Consequently, enforcement of child support arrearage against a debtor is subject to federal jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1334, and it is a core proceeding in this case. 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(B), (G), (I) and (L).

Section 157(b)(2)(H) does not make a third party’s state law fraud claim involving a pre-petition conveyance a core proceeding.

Helmer v. Murray (In Re Murray) · filed 1993-01-05(b)(2)(H)

By its terms, 11 U.S.C. § 548 vests a cause of action for the determination, avoidance or recovery of a fraudulent conveyance only in trustees or debtors-in-possession, not in third parties such as Helmer who assert state law fraud claims involving pre-petition transactions. Thus, neither 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H) nor 11 U.S.C. § 548 support Helmer’s position that this adversary proceeding is a “core” proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats proceedings about compensation for a bankruptcy trustee and counsel as core proceedings.

In Re Orfa Corp. of Philadelphia · filed 1993-01-22(b)(2)(A)

Fourthly, issues involving professional compensation, particularly ... those of a bankruptcy-created trustee and his counsel, are core proceedings, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), within the exclusive jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) covers a motion for injunctive relief as a core proceeding when the relief preserves an adversary case and protects the reorganization process.

Dearborn Process Service, Inc. v. Storner (In Re Dearborn Process Service, Inc.) · filed 1993-01-22(b)(2)(A)

Nevertheless, the motion is still a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(A) (“matters concerning the administration of the estate”) because injunctive relief is necessary to prevent Defendants from depriving this Court of jurisdiction over the underlying Adversary case by rendering it moot through their actions. It is also core because such relief is needed to protect the reorganization process from illegal activity.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a debtor’s claim for damages arising from bankruptcy counsel’s handling of the case as a core proceeding concerning administration of the estate.

Billing v. Ravin Greenberg & Zackin, P.A. (In Re Billing) · filed 1993-01-25(b)(2)(A)

First, a claim which attacks the competency of the debtors’ representative and seeks damages as a result must be deemed “a matter concerning the administration of the estate.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(O) treats an action to determine and enforce a bankruptcy discharge as a core proceeding affecting the adjustment of the debtor-creditor relationship.

Jacobs v. State Ex Rel. Weatherford (In Re Jacobs) · filed 1993-01-29(b)(2)(O)

An action before the Court which issued a discharge, for the purpose of determining the scope of said discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 524 and enforcing said discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 105, 525, is not merely related to the bankruptcy, but arises under Title 11 and arises in a case under Title 11, is a “proceeding ... affecting ... the adjustment of the debtor-creditor relationship,” and is therefore a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0), In re Will Rogers Jockey & Polo Club, Inc., 111 B.R. 948, 952 (B.C., N.D.Okl.1990).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a proceeding that protects an approved settlement from competing claims as a core proceeding concerning administration of the estate.

Plaza at Latham Associates v. Citicorp North America, Inc. · filed 1993-02-08(b)(2)(A)

By limiting subsequent claims against Travelers, Judge Mahoney’s order prevents disruption of an approved settlement. Therefore, the present proceeding achieves “core” status because it involves matters “concerning the administration of the estate.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b) allocates existing bankruptcy jurisdiction between core and non-core proceedings; it does not independently confer jurisdiction.

Zerand-Bernal Group, Inc. v. Cox (In Re Cary Metal Products, Inc.) · filed 1993-02-22(b)

Contrary to the parties tacit assumption, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) ... does not provide an independent source of jurisdiction to hear Zerand’s complaint. It merely allocates the jurisdiction created by 28 U.S.C. § 1334 between core and non-core proceedings.

Section 157(b) treats a proceeding over insurance coverage as core when the policies are estate property integral to the debtor’s reorganization.

Celotex Corp. v. AIU Insurance (In Re Celotex Corp.) · filed 1993-04-01(b)

Because the adversary proceeding against potential Claimants/Defendants involves property of the estate which is an integral part of the Debtor’s reorganization process and is clearly within the context of core matters set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b), this adversary proceeding is a core proceeding.

Section 157 treats an objection to a proof of claim and a counterclaim against the claimant as core proceedings.

Chapman v. Burton Berger & Associates (In Re Chapman) · filed 1993-04-04(b)(2)(B) and (C)

Since the Plaintiff-Debtor is objecting to BB & A’s proof of claim as well as filing a counterclaim thereto, the controversy between this Debtor and BB & A is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) and (C).

A proceeding concerning the scope of a discharge injunction under §§ 524 and 1141 is a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2).

Polysat, Inc. v. Union Tank Car Co. (In Re Polysat, Inc.) · filed 1993-04-15(b)(2)

As the instant proceeding concerns the scope of the discharge injunction arising from sections 524 and 1141 of the Code, it is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A), (I) or (0).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) does not make a state law contract claim a core proceeding merely because it may fit the estate administration category.

Abadie v. Poppin · filed 1993-04-19(b)(2)(A)

However, the Ninth Circuit has held that state law contract cases such as this one which might fit within the catch-all provision of § 157(b)(2)(A) may not be deemed core proceedings. ... Accordingly, this court finds that Abadie’s complaint is not a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(O)’s exclusion of personal injury tort claims from core proceedings does not cover business torts.

Donald A. Horwitz and Wesco Products Company v. Alloy Automotive Company, Sheldon Gray, and Avrum Gray · filed 1993-04-21(b)(2)(O)

Although § 157(b)(2)(0) excludes from “core” proceedings “personal injury tort or wrongful death claims”, business torts cannot be shoehorned into this category.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats issues concerning whether foreclosed property belongs to the bankruptcy estate as core proceedings that the bankruptcy court may decide.

Matlock v. Lomas Mortgage U.S.A., Inc. (In Re Matlock) · filed 1993-04-22(b)(2)(E)

This Court is convinced that these issues are core proceedings to determine what is property of the estate and that this Court has jurisdiction to make the necessary determination.

Section 157(b)(2) treats an adversary proceeding as core when its claims arise from bankruptcy law and are significantly affected by the bankruptcy case.

Johnston Environmental Corp. v. Knight (In re Goodman) · filed 1993-04-23(b)(2)

The entire basis of Johnston's claim revolved around bankruptcy provisions and the Debtor's bankruptcy case, and did not exist independently of Title 11. The adversary proceeding had both "arising under" and "arising in" elements. The claims did not depend on state law for resolution and were significantly affected by the filing of the bankruptcy case. The claims presented would be entirely inappropriate for resolution in any court other than a bankruptcy court. The adversary proceeding was thus properly characterized by the bankruptcy court as a "core proceeding."

Section 157(b)(2)(B) and (C) makes objections to proofs of claim and counterclaims against claimants core bankruptcy proceedings.

Chapman v. Currie Motors, Inc. (In re Chapman) · filed 1993-05-04(b)(2)(B) and (C)

Since Chapman is objecting to Currie Motors’ proof of claim as well as filing a counterclaim thereto, the controversy between them is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) and (C).

Section 157 treats the existence and validity of a debt as a core proceeding.

Great American Insurance v. O'Brien (In Re O'Brien) · filed 1993-05-12(b)(2)(I)

Based on the amended opinion of In re McLaren, 990 F.2d 850 (6th Cir.1993), the existence and validity of a debt is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2) treats claims linked to turnover of estate property and adjustment of the debtor-creditor relationship as core proceedings.

Sapir v. Hudson Realty Co. (In Re Rosalind Gardens Associates) · filed 1993-05-20(b)(2)

Judge Schwartzberg concluded that the present adversary proceeding is a core proceeding and this Court agrees. The claim against defendant Lehrman is that this defendant assisted the other defendants in seizing the tax certiorari proceeds after the Chapter 11 petition had been filed and after a foreclosure and sale of a non-recourse mortgage as to which no deficiency judgment was sought or obtained against the personal property of the debt- or. This claim is inextricably linked with the primary claim — that is, the turnover of property of the debtor’s estate. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E). Moreover, any damages awarded in this adversary proceeding will be distributed to creditors and adjust the debtor-creditor relationship. 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A), (0).

Section 157(b) does not treat an action to recover property in which the debtors have no interest as a core proceeding.

In re Walton · filed 1993-06-02(b)

A review of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) clearly indicates that an action to recover property in which the Debtors have no interest does not represent a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(M) treats cash collateral orders as core matters, and civil contempt proceedings arising from core matters are themselves core matters.

In Re Spanish River Plaza Realty Co., Ltd. · filed 1993-06-11(b)(2)(M)

Cash collateral orders are core matters under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(M). Civil contempt proceedings arising out of core matters are themselves core matters.

Section 157(b)(2) covers a state-law action against estate representatives as a core proceeding when the action is inextricably tied to an administrative claim and the administration of the estate.

Honigman v. Weitzman (In Re Delorean Motor Co.) · filed 1993-06-30(b)(2)

Although the Weitzman action asserts a state law claim, as the functional equivalent of an action against the trustee, it is inextricably tied to the determination of an administrative claim against the estate and is similarly tied to questions concerning the proper administration of the estate. For these reasons, we determine that Weitzman’s action against Schade and the Honigman defendants is within the scope of 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) and a core proceeding within the scope of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) encompass a motion to compel implementation of a liquidation plan as a core proceeding.

In re JNC Companies · filed 1993-06-30(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(O)

Core proceedings include "matters concerning the administration of the estate," 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), and "other proceedings affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate," 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(O). The motion to compel implementation was well within these provisions.

Section 157(b) treats enforcement of the automatic stay through contempt or turnover proceedings as a core matter in which a bankruptcy court may enter a final order.

In Re Abercrombie · filed 1993-07-02(b)

Enforcement of the automatic stay by contempt-type proceedings, 11 U.S.C. § 362(h) or Bankruptcy Rule 9020, or by turnover proceedings, 11 U.S.C. § 542, constitutes a core matter of which this court has jurisdiction to enter a final order.

Section 157(b)(2) treats setoffs, claim objections, and claim estimation as core proceedings, even when the principal breach-of-contract claim is noncore.

Hupp Industries, Inc. v. Environmental Products Amalgamated Pty., Inc. (In Re Hupp Industries, Inc.) · filed 1993-07-02(b)(2)

Certain prongs of the Complaint, however, (i.e., set-offs, objection to claim, and claim estimation) are clearly within the Court’s core jurisdiction. Id.; 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to enter a final order in a core proceeding involving tax liability and a claim against the bankruptcy estate.

Cluck v. United States (In Re Cluck) · filed 1993-07-13(b)(1)

The Court concludes that Bankruptcy Judge King properly determined that the matter was a core proceeding and entered a final order consistent with Title 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(1).

Section 157 treats matters concerning estate administration or the validity, extent, or priority of liens as core proceedings.

Cox v. Grella (In re Beverly Corp.) · filed 1993-07-14(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(K)

However, the Court finds as a matter of law that this is a core proceeding, either as a matter concerning the administration of the estate or involving the determination of the validity, extent, or priority of liens.

Section 157(b) treats proceedings arising under or arising in a bankruptcy case as core proceedings in which the bankruptcy court may enter final judgments.

Sedlachek v. National Bank of Long Beach (In Re Kold Kist Brands, Inc.) · filed 1993-07-19(b)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b), matters that “arise under” or “arise in” a bankruptcy case are “core” proceedings in which the bankruptcy court is authorized to enter final judgments.

Section 157(b) treats an action to bring property into the bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding when the claim belongs to the debtor or creditors generally.

Hall v. Sunshine Mining Co. (In Re Sunshine Precious Metals, Inc.) · filed 1993-07-22(b)

This Court appropriately has jurisdiction to decide this issue as a core proceeding, as Judge Abramson decided. ... Moreover, the nature of the action as an attempt to bring property into the estate, is, at a minimum, an administrative action that would have no existence outside of bankruptcy, and therefore “aris[es] in a case under title 11.”

Section 157 does not make antitrust claims core proceedings merely because they arose from a bankruptcy sale.

In Re Intl Nutronics, Inc. · filed 1993-08-10(b)

The Trustee's antitrust claims are not core matters. Antitrust claims do not arise under the Bankruptcy Code and they are properly brought before an Article III court.

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to adjudicate as a core proceeding a claim seeking enforcement of its order when the claim invokes a substantive right created by federal bankruptcy law.

Mihnlong Enterprises, Inc. v. New York International Hostel, Inc. (In Re New York International Hostel, Inc.) · filed 1993-08-12(b)(1)

Appellants’ claim, which seeks enforcement of an order entered by the bankruptcy court pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 363(k) and 11 U.S.C. Section 105, “invokes a substantive right created by federal bankruptcy law” and thus falls within the bankruptcy court’s core jurisdiction.

Section 157(b)(2)(O) covers an action to collect a promissory note owned by the bankruptcy estate when collection affects liquidation of estate assets, allowing the bankruptcy judge to issue a final ruling.

McLeod v. Westerville Broadcasting of Florida, Inc. (In re McLeod) · filed 1993-08-12(b)(2)(O)

Therefore, this Court concludes that the promissory note is an asset of the bankruptcy estate. These proceedings affect the liquidation of that asset, resulting in the addition of some $800,000 to the funds available for distribution by the bankruptcy court. The matter is “inextricably tied” to the bankruptcy proceeding. Accordingly, this action to collect on the promissory note is a core proceeding and the bankruptcy court had authority to issue a final ruling.

Section 157 distinguishes core from non-core proceedings but does not independently expand bankruptcy court jurisdiction beyond § 1334.

Zerand-Bernal Group, Inc. v. Cox (In Re Cary Metal Products, Inc.) · filed 1993-08-24(b)

Section 157 does not enlarge the scope of the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction under § 1334.

Section 157(b)(2) does not make a motion to withdraw as counsel in a separate state court action a core proceeding when the attorney-client relationship has no nexus to the bankruptcy case.

In re Bri-Tech Systems, Inc. · filed 1993-08-31(b)(2)

This Motion does not constitute a core proceeding, see 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2); nor does this Motion constitute a matter related to the above-referenced case under the Bankruptcy Code; see 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) treat abstention and remand orders as core proceedings within a bankruptcy judge’s authority.

Brizzolara v. Fisher Pen Co. · filed 1993-09-13(b)(2)(A) and (O)

Apart from legislative history, the language of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) gives core authority for abstention and remand. The list of core proceedings in § 157(b)(2) is, by its terms, non-exclusive (“include, but are not limited to”). The context, wording, and history of the 1990 Amendments made clear their intent to include remand and abstention orders in the core bankruptcy authority.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) does not make a debtor’s prepetition contract action against a party that filed no bankruptcy claim a core proceeding merely because recovery would benefit the estate.

In Re Orion Pictures Corporation, Debtor, Orion Pictures Corporation v. Showtime Networks, Inc., Formerly Known as Showt · filed 1993-09-17(b)(2)(A)

Thus we hold that this breach-of-contract action by a debtor against a party to a pre-petition contract, who has filed no claim with the bankruptcy court, is non-core.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a bankruptcy court’s determination whether attorney fees should be disgorged as a core proceeding.

Wright v. United States (In Re Placid Oil Co.) · filed 1993-09-22(b)(2)(A)

Its determination whether the fees should be disgorged was a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2) treats claims concerning post-petition conduct as core proceedings even when the underlying contracts arose before the bankruptcy petition.

Nutri/System, Inc. v. Carma, Inc. (In Re Nutri/System, Inc.) · filed 1993-10-05(b)(2)

However, given the broad interpretation of core proceedings as dictated by Congress, In re Arnold Print Works, Inc., 815 F.2d 165, 168 (1st Cir.1987), we find that plaintiffs allegations are not independent of the bankruptcy proceeding because they concern defendants’ post-petition conduct which is clearly covered by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2), subsections (A) (relating to matters concerning the administration of the estate), (M) (relating to orders approving the use of property of the bankruptcy estate) and (0) (relating to proceedings affecting liquidation of the assets of the bankruptcy estate). As such, they are not non-core simply because the contracts arose prior to the bankruptcy petition.

Section 157(b)(2) does not make a state law dispute between individuals a core proceeding when its outcome is not reasonably expected to affect administration of the bankruptcy estate.

Sullivan v. Pressman (In re Sullivan's Jewelry, Inc.) · filed 1993-10-22(b)(2)

Neither is it a core proceeding as described in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2), or a non-core proceeding that is otherwise related to a case under title 11. The Bankruptcy Court does not enjoy subject matter jurisdiction to hear and determine this state law action between two non-debtor individuals, when the outcome of the lawsuit is not reasonably expected to affect the administration of the Chapter 7 estate.

Section 157’s designation of a matter as a core proceeding gives the bankruptcy court authority to adjudicate it but does not prevent arbitration.

In Re Statewide Realty Co. · filed 1993-10-22(b)

The fact that the matter before the court is a core proceeding does not mean that arbitration is inappropriate.

A third-party claim does not become a core proceeding under § 157 merely because the main claim is core.

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors Ex Rel. Summit Airlines, Inc. v. Ganz (In Re Summit Airlines, Inc.) · filed 1993-11-16(b)(2)(A)

We refuse to accept the Astor Firm’s argument that, since the main case is core and the third-party claim concerns property of the Debtor’s estate, this court automatically has jurisdiction over the third-party claims. Non'-related claims arising in core proceedings are not thereby transformed into core claims themselves.

Section 157(b) treats equitable subordination and reclamation as core proceedings on which a bankruptcy judge may enter final judgments.

Waslow v. MNC Commercial Corp. (In Re M. Paolella & Sons, Inc.) · filed 1993-11-18(b)

In conclusion, equitable subordination and reclamation are “core” proceedings under the Bankruptcy Code. Therefore, pursuant to section 157(b)(1), the Bankruptcy Court had the power to enter final judgments as to these proceedings, and this Court’s review under the “clearly erroneous” standard clearly comports with the principles set forth in Marathon.

Section 157(b)(2) does not classify a disputed state-law contract claim seeking a deficiency judgment as a core proceeding.

Thomson McKinnon Securities, Inc. v. Warwick (In Re Thomson McKinnon Securities Inc.) · filed 1993-11-24(b)(2)

2. This adversary proceeding, in which a jury trial has been demanded, is related to the debtor’s Chapter 11 case and is not a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b) treats a proceeding to determine dischargeability of a debt as a core proceeding, even when the count also seeks RICO treble damages and attorney fees.

Barber v. Martin (In Re Martin) · filed 1993-11-30(b)

What OMI’s trustee is attempting to do is to obtain a determination of nondischargeability, which is a core proceeding under § 157(b), and a cumulative remedy of treble damages and attorney fees.

A proceeding involving a cause of action created or determined by title 11 is a core proceeding under § 157.

Hoffman v. Ramirez (In Re Astroline Communications Co.) · filed 1993-12-02(b)(1)

With this principle in mind, although the movants’ arguments for why this matter is non-core are not insubstantial, the court determines that Counts I, II, and IV constitute core proceedings because they involve causes of action created and determined by a statutory provision of title 11.

Section 157(b)(1) treats a tort claim arising entirely from postpetition conduct as a core proceeding arising in a bankruptcy case.

Community Bank of Homestead v. Boone (In Re Boone) · filed 1994-02-02(b)(1)

Under these circumstances, the Court finds that the Boones’ interference of contract claim is a core matter “arising in a case under title 11.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

Section 157’s designation of a matter as a core proceeding cannot establish jurisdiction when another statute specifically excludes the action from removal.

Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department v. Shapiro (In Re Friedman & Shapiro, P.C.) · filed 1995-08-08

Here, to the extent that a disciplinary action is categorized as a core proceeding under § 157, that categorization cannot establish jurisdiction where this Court has been specifically and purposefully deprived of jurisdiction by another section of law.

Section 157(b)’s list of core proceedings does not itself grant district courts bankruptcy jurisdiction.

Saul, Ewing, Remick & Saul v. Provident Savings Bank · filed 1996-01-05(b)

28 U.S.C. § 157 is not a jurisdictional grant to the district courts, but rather, an “itemization” of the types of proceedings which constitute “core” proceedings appropriate for resolution by the bankruptcy court.

Section 157’s designation of core proceedings governs whether a bankruptcy judge may adjudicate a matter; it does not determine whether federal subject matter jurisdiction exists.

Royal v. Daihatsu (In Re Royal) · filed 1996-06-12(b)(2)

Designation of a proceeding as “core” relates to whether it is due to be heard in an Article III court rather than in an Article I court and has no relevance to the issue of whether or not subject matter jurisdiction exists in the federal courts.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) defines which proceedings are core; it does not determine whether the bankruptcy court has subject matter jurisdiction.

In Re Leslie Fay Companies, Inc. · filed 1997-08-18(b)(2)(B)

Subject matter jurisdiction is not lacking given that section 157(b)(2)(B) is not jurisdictional; it defines only what is core and not core.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court hearing a core proceeding to decide the constitutionality of a state law raised as a defense.

Wasserman v. Household Realty Corp. (In Re Barkley) · filed 2001-06-21(b)

The Court, therefore, plainly retains jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of a substantive law that is relied upon in a party’s defense to a core-matter adversary proceeding that arises under Title 11.

Section 157(b) authorizes bankruptcy judges to hear and determine core proceedings, including dischargeability determinations, without conditioning jurisdiction on timely filing.

In Re Phillips · filed 2002-09-09(b)

Furthermore, this Court’s jurisdiction is determined by 28 U.S.C. Section 157(b), and nothing in that statute conditions jurisdiction over discharge objections on timeliness.

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

Ukasick v. Street (In Re Street) · filed 2002-09-25(c)(1)

Because such an action is not a “core proceeding,” absent the parties’ consent the bankruptcy court will be limited to submitting proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), but this statute further supports the conclusion that jurisdiction exists.

Section 157 concerns bankruptcy venue; original bankruptcy jurisdiction comes from § 1334.

French v. Fisher · filed 2003-03-03

Section 157 is in essence a bankruptcy venue provision; § 1334 confers original jurisdiction over "civil proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in or related to cases under title 11;” § 1367 sets forth the circumstances under which a court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over certain claims; and § 2201, as part of the Declaratory Judgment Act, does not provide an independent basis for jurisdiction.

Section 157(b)(1) gives bankruptcy courts jurisdiction over core proceedings arising under Title 11 or in a Title 11 case, including claims arising from a bankruptcy lease rejection.

In re George · filed 2003-03-06(b)(1)

We have already determined that "[a]ll of the Georges' claims arise out of the bankruptcy court's ruling that the lease was rejected pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(4)." In re George, 1999 WL 387070, at *1. The bankruptcy court has complete jurisdiction over "all core proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in a case under title 11." 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1); In re George, 1999 WL 387070, at *1. We have also found that the surrender order, based on federal bankruptcy law, was valid. See In re George, 177 F.3d at 888-90. The bankruptcy court had the jurisdiction to dismiss the § 1983 claim.

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear and finally determine a core motion addressing jurisdiction and whether a debtor’s claim belongs to the bankruptcy estate.

Casey v. Grasso (In Re Riccitelli) · filed 2005-02-07(b)(1)

This motion (as opposed to the adversary proceeding as a whole) is a proceeding (1) to determine whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the adversary proceeding and (2) to determine whether claims belonging to the Debtor are assets of the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(a). In both respects, this motion is a core proceeding, and therefore, as the parties agree, this Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the motion to dismiss and to enter an appropriate and final order on it. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

Section 157(b)(1) addresses core proceedings, which are a subset of proceedings within bankruptcy jurisdiction; calling a matter core does not itself establish jurisdiction.

Poole v. American International Group, Inc. · filed 2006-02-14(b)(1)

Core proceedings, defined, in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), are “a subset of the cases over which jurisdiction is granted in § 1334(b).”

Section 157(b) allocates responsibility between district and bankruptcy courts; it does not determine whether state courts may hear core bankruptcy proceedings.

Hopkins v. Plant Insulation Co. · filed 2006-07-27(b)

Section 157(b) governs the division of responsibility between Article III district courts and Article I bankruptcy courts in each judicial district, and has nothing to say about the division of responsibility between state and federal courts.

Section 157(b) defines the scope of a bankruptcy court’s power but does not independently confer subject matter jurisdiction.

Broadhollow Funding, LLC v. Bank of America, N.A. (In Re American Home Mortgage, Holdings, Inc.) · filed 2008-06-27(b)

Importantly, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) is not an independent basis for conferring subject-matter jurisdiction to a bankruptcy court. Rather, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) delineates the scope of the bankruptcy court’s power to exercise the subject-matter jurisdiction granted to the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1334.

Section 157(b) governs a bankruptcy court’s authority to decide core proceedings but does not itself supply subject matter jurisdiction; jurisdiction must first exist under § 1334(b).

Ostroff v. American Home Mortgage (In Re Ostroff) · filed 2010-08-16(b)

As I explained above, before § 157 even comes into play, jurisdiction must first lie under § 1334(b). After there is jurisdiction, then § 157 serves to determine whether the bankruptcy court is empowered to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. If even the district court would lack jurisdiction under § 1334(b) because the proceeding does not arise under the Bankruptcy Code or arise in or relate to a case under title 11, § 157 cannot otherwise save a case from dismissal.

Section 157’s allocation of final judgment authority does not determine whether a bankruptcy court has subject matter jurisdiction.

Samson v. Blixseth (In re Blixseth) · filed 2012-01-03

In particular, I find the Court erred when it made reference to subject matter jurisdiction in its August 1, 2011, ruling. ... Following the express language of Henderson and Stern v. Marshall, this Court concludes that because the United States District Court for the District of Montana would have the requisite subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims in this Adversary Proceeding, so too does this Court.

Section 157 governs a bankruptcy judge’s authority to enter a final judgment; its core and non-core distinction does not determine subject matter jurisdiction.

Liquidating Trustee of the MPC Liquidating Trust v. Granite Financial Solutions, Inc. (In re MPC Computers, LLC) · filed 2012-02-07

The question pondered by the Supreme Court in Stem, whether the bankruptcy judge had the power to enter a final judgment in a state law counterclaim by the estate, is entirely separate from the question of whether a bankruptcy judge has jurisdiction to hear a matter without entering a final judgment.

Section 157(b)(2)’s descriptions of core proceedings do not expand bankruptcy jurisdiction beyond § 1334.

Johnston v. City of Middletown (In re Johnston) · filed 2012-12-21(b)(2)

Thus, the descriptions of “core” proceedings under § 157(b)(2), like § 505, do not expand the jurisdiction granted to the district courts and bankruptcy courts through § 1334.

Section 157 governs which court may enter a final order or judgment in core and non-core proceedings; core status does not determine subject matter jurisdiction.

British American Insurance v. Fullerton (In re British American Insurance) · filed 2013-02-28

Whether a matter is core or non-core affects only which court may enter a final order or judgment and under what conditions. 28 U.S.C. § 157. Saying only that a matter is not core fails to answer the jurisdictional question.

Section 157 governs which bankruptcy matters district courts may refer to bankruptcy judges; it does not itself grant federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Smith v. Smith (In re Smith) · filed 2013-04-02

The plaintiff likely intended 28 U.S.C. § 157. But that statute does not grant federal subject matter jurisdiction-it merely clarifies what matters a district court can refer to bankruptcy judges.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) treats determinations of the dischargeability of particular debts as core proceedings within a bankruptcy court's jurisdiction.

Mott v. Sallie Mae Services (In re Mott) · filed 2013-05-22(b)(2)(I)

Actions to determine dischargeability of debts are listed among the “core” proceedings in § 157(b)(2). See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I); see also In re Luby, 438 B.R. 817 n. 1 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Pa.2010). Regardless of whether the debt is in fact dischargeable, this Court is competent to rule on whether it is. Accordingly, the Court finds that Sallie Mae’s jurisdictional challenge is unfounded. The Complaint raises a matter within this Court’s core jurisdiction.

Section 157 allocates authority to enter final judgment between bankruptcy and district courts; a limit on that authority does not eliminate subject matter jurisdiction.

Kohut v. Metzler Locricchio Serra & Co. (In re Munivest Services, LLC) · filed 2013-10-15

Waldman v. Stone does not hold that a bankruptcy court lacks subject matter jurisdiction when the congressional allocation of authority is found to be unconstitutional. “Section 157 [of title 28] allocates the authority to enter final judgment between the bankruptcy court and the district court. That allocation does not implicate questions of subject matter jurisdiction.” Stern v. Marshall, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2594, 2607, 180 L.Ed.2d 475 (2011) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(1), (c)(1)). As a result, Metzler’s request for dismissal based upon lack of jurisdiction must be denied.

Section 157(b) gives federal bankruptcy courts exclusive authority over core proceedings.

Kumkang Valve Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Enterprise Products Operating LLC and Enterprise Gas Processing LLC · filed 2014-07-31(b)

The federal bankruptcy courts retain exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction over core proceedings.

Section 157 does not create bankruptcy jurisdiction; it applies only after jurisdiction exists under § 1334.

In re: E.C. Morris Corp. v. · filed 2014-12-10

There is no need to determine whether this is a core or non-core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157 because “§ 157 only comes into play if the court first determines it has jurisdiction under § 1334. Section 157 does not create jurisdiction when it does not exist under § 1334.” Johnston v. City of Middletown (In re Johnston), 484 B.R. 698, 713 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2012).

Section 157 allocates responsibility between bankruptcy and district courts and does not govern subject matter jurisdiction.

Loveridge v. Hall (In Re Renewable Energy Development Corp.) · filed 2015-07-10

The statute Summit invokes, 28 U.S.C. § 157, involves only the allocation of responsibility between the bankruptcy and district court; it does not “implicate questions of subject matter jurisdiction.”

Section 157 allocates responsibility between bankruptcy and district courts but does not determine subject matter jurisdiction.

Loveridge v. Hall · filed 2015-07-28

The statute Summit invokes, 28 U.S.C. § 157, involves only the allocation of responsibility between the bankruptcy and district court; it does not “implicate questions of subject matter jurisdiction.”

Section 157(b)(2)(B) does not authorize a bankruptcy court to hear a claim amount dispute when subject matter jurisdiction is lacking and the proceeding has not been referred under § 157(a).

In re Davenport · filed 2015-12-31(b)(2)(B)

However, if a proceeding to determine the amount of a claim has not been referred under § 157(a), § 157(b)(2)(B) does not come into play. If subject matter jurisdiction is lacking over a proceeding to determine the amount of a claim, as is the case here, the proceeding is not referred under § 157(a), and, accordingly, the proceeding is not one that the bankruptcy court may hear.

Section 157(b) does not override the Rooker-Feldman bar on federal review of a state court decision.

Isaacs v. DBI-ASG Coinvestor Fund, III, LLC (In Re Isaacs) · filed 2018-07-18(b)(1)

For the reasons discussed above, this claim requires appellate review of the state court’s decision, and so is barred by Rooker-Feldman, the general grant of jurisdiction in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) notwithstanding.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to exercise jurisdiction over a non-core proceeding related to a bankruptcy.

Kravitz v. Summersett (In re Great Lakes Comnet, Inc.) · filed 2018-06-15(c)(1)

Nonetheless, this court may exercise jurisdiction if the proceeding is "non-core, but related to" the bankruptcy.

Section 157 classifies certain bankruptcy matters as core proceedings that bankruptcy judges may hear and determine.

In re Ludkowski · filed 2018-07-24(b)(2)(G), (b)(2)(O)

Motions to terminate, annul, or modify the automatic stay are core proceedings arising under title 11, in which the bankruptcy court is empowered to enter orders. ... A request for sanctions for alleged violations of the automatic stay may only arise in a case under title 11 and, therefore, is a core proceeding. ... Accordingly, determination of the Motion is within the scope of the court's jurisdiction and constitutional authority.

Section 157 authorizes bankruptcy judges to enter final judgments in core proceedings and governs their authority over related proceedings.

Layng v. Garcia (In re Garcia) · filed 2018-07-20(b)(1), (b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(J), (b)(3), (c)(1)

Bankruptcy judges must therefore determine, on motion or sua sponte , whether a proceeding is a core proceeding or is otherwise related to a case under the Bankruptcy Code. ... This matter is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C § 157(b)(2)(A), (J).

Section 157 does not independently grant subject-matter jurisdiction over bankruptcy proceedings.

MITCHELL, Chapter 7 Trustee for the Estate of Moll v. Hohnbaum · filed 2020-04-10

To apply this factor, I need only, and do, determine that section 157 is not a source of subject-matter jurisdiction over these actions in addition to section 1334.

Section 157 does not independently confer subject-matter jurisdiction over bankruptcy proceedings.

Mitchell, Trustee v. Promwongsa · filed 2020-04-10

To apply this factor, I need only, and do, determine that section 157 is not a source of subject-matter jurisdiction over these actions in addition to section 1334.

Section 157 does not independently confer subject-matter jurisdiction on bankruptcy courts.

Amborn, Trustee v. Peyton · filed 2020-04-10

To apply this factor, I need only, and do, determine that section 157 is not a source of subject-matter jurisdiction over these actions in addition to section 1334.

Section 157(b)(1) permits bankruptcy judges to hear core proceedings but does not give bankruptcy courts exclusive jurisdiction over them as against state courts.

SUPERPUMPER, INC. VS. LEONARD · filed 2021-09-16(b)(1)

Further, a bankruptcy court's exercise of jurisdiction is permissive, not mandatory. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) provides that a "[b]ankruptcy judge[ ] may hear and determine all cases under title 11 and all core proceedings arising under title 11." (Emphasis added.) There is no language in the statute or Gruntz that demands that core proceedings be exclusively within the jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts as against state courts.

Section 157(b)(1) authorizes bankruptcy courts to decide core proceedings but does not divest district courts of jurisdiction they otherwise have.

Shefa, LLC v. City of Southfield · filed 2021-09-28(b)(1)

Defendants point to no authority that would divest this Court of subject matter jurisdiction merely because the bankruptcy court may also have jurisdiction over the issues at bar. And the Sixth Circuit has previously rejected just this argument. In re Camall Co., 16 F. App’x 403, 410 (6th Cir. 2001) (noting no authority for the proposition that a bankruptcy court may “divest the Federal District Court of its plenary jurisdiction” regardless of whether a proceeding is core or non-core). Therefore, this Court does not lack subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims.

Section 157 permits a district court to refer bankruptcy matters to a bankruptcy court and identifies core bankruptcy proceedings.

Comm 2013 CCRE12 Crossing Mall Road, LLC v. Tara Retail Group, LLC · filed 2022-04-20(a), (b)(2)(A), (L), and (O)

This Court has jurisdiction over this matter by virtue of the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(a) and 157(a) and the delegation made to this Court by the Amended Standing Order of Reference entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia on April 2, 2013. This Court further concludes that this matter is a “core” bankruptcy proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (L), and (O).

Section 157 authorizes bankruptcy courts to hear core proceedings and proceedings related to a bankruptcy case under subsection (c)(1).

Warren W. Jencks and Sandra J. Jencks · filed 2022-04-29(b)(1), (c)(1)

For a bankruptcy court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction, the proceeding must either be a core proceeding under Title 11, arise in a case under Title 11, or else be “otherwise related to a case under [T]itle 11.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), (c)(1). Post-discharge proceedings on the nature of state law claims are not core proceedings as contemplated in § 157. Moffitt, 406 B.R. at 831. For these claims, a bankruptcy court may only exercise “related to” jurisdiction under § 157(c)(1). Id.; Abramowitz v. Palmer, 999 F.2d 1274, 1277 (8th Cir. 1993); In re Mayhone, 165 B.R. 264, 266 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 1994).

Section 157 does not provide an independent basis for bankruptcy jurisdiction beyond 28 U.S.C. § 1334.

Duncan v. Heinrich · filed 2018-07-26

Appellants' arguments concerning 28 U.S.C. § 157 do not alter the overall calculus concerning subject matter jurisdiction because this section does not provide an independent basis for jurisdiction beyond that available via 28 U.S.C. § 1334.

Section 157 allocates authority to enter final judgment between bankruptcy courts and district courts without determining subject matter jurisdiction.

In re: Advanced Beauty Solutions, LLC · filed 2012-02-08

And more importantly for our purposes in addressing CirTran’s arguments in this appeal, Stern also makes clear that 28 U.S.C. § 157, the statute considered by the Court, merely “allocates the authority to enter final judgment between the bankruptcy court and the district court,” and contrary to CirTran’s position here, “[t]hat allocation does not implicate questions of subject matter jurisdiction.”

Section 157 allocates authority to enter final judgment between bankruptcy and district courts without affecting subject matter jurisdiction.

In re: Sunra Coffee, LLC · filed 2012-08-21

And more importantly for our purposes in this appeal, Stern also makes clear that 28 U.S.C. § 157, the statute considered by the Court, merely "allocates the authority to enter final judgment between the bankruptcy court and the district court," and contrary to Nekoba’s position here, "[t]hat allocation does not implicate questions of subject matter jurisdiction." Id. at 2607.

Section 157 treats a counterclaim involving claim allowance and dischargeability as a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy court may enter judgment for the creditor’s debt.

Kinney v. Higher Education Assistance Foundation (In Re Kinney) · filed 1990-03-29(b)(2)(B), (b)(2)(I)

I conclude that HEAF’s counterclaim is a core proceeding because it involves allowance and disallowance of a claim against the estate and a determination of dis-chargeability. Given the proposition that the district court, and bankruptcy court by delegation, have jurisdiction to determine allowance and dischargeability of claims, it follows under well established principles that the jurisdiction extends to the entry of judgment for the creditor in the amount of the debt.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats a creditor’s claim against the debtor as a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy court may determine the claim’s validity and amount along with its dischargeability.

Bankr. L. Rep. P 75,430 in Re William J. McLaren Debtor. William Longo, Sr. v. McLaren · filed 1993-08-30(b)(2)(B)

This Court recognized that a suit by a third party creditor, such as Longo, against the debtor (and thus the bankruptcy estate), is a “core proceeding” under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B). As such, the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to adjudge the validity and amount of a claim together with its dischargeability.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) does not make a removed state-law action against a debtor a core claim-allowance proceeding when no proof of claim has been filed.

Lennar Corp. v. BRIARWOOD CAPITAL LLC · filed 2010-04-30(b)(2)(B)

In the absence of a claim, the case law and clear language of the statute compel a finding that the Florida Action was removed and is pending here solely based on “related to” jurisdiction. ... In looking at the core versus non-core nature of the removed case, the Court must look solely to the present record, not what may or may not happen in the Bankruptcy Cases.

Section 157 treats claim allowance and lien determinations as core proceedings and permits a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment on lien rights integral to a claim against the estate.

King Oil Field Services, LLP v. PricewaterhouseCoopers (In re Poseidon Concepts Corp.) · filed 2014-09-25(b)(2)(B), (K)

The allowance or disallowance of claims and the determination of liens are statutorily designated as core proceedings under §§ 157(b)(2)(B) and (K). In addition, they lie well within the constitutional limits of bankruptcy court authority discussed in Stem. Because King’s lien claim is inseparable from the claim it filed in this case and because its lien is asserted against assets of the estate, the determination of those lien rights falls squarely within the Court’s authority to enter final judgments in core bankruptcy matters.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) covers claim allowance as a core proceeding, but a suit against a debtor does not fall within that category when the plaintiff has not filed a proof of claim.

Hoffmann v. Ondrajka · filed 2024-03-01(b)(2)(B)

This adversary proceeding therefore does not implicate the bankruptcy claim allowance process, and is not “core” under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear and determine a core proceeding concerning property even after granting relief from the automatic stay as to that property.

Fricker v. First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A. (In Re Fricker) · filed 1990-04-05(b)(1)

We will therefore proceed to hear and determine this core proceeding, see 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), even though we granted relief from the automatic stay to the two principal defendants as to the property which the Debtors seek to recover in this proceeding.

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

In Re Cardinal Industries, Inc. · filed 1990-05-14(b)(2)(G)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(G)'s category for automatic stay orders does not cover a complaint seeking lease-related declaratory and injunctive relief when it does not request termination, annulment, or modification of the stay.

McMahon Books, Inc. v. New Castle Associates (In Re McMahon Books, Inc.) · filed 1994-11-01(b)(2)(G)

This is not a motion "to terminate, annul or modify the automatic stay,” as incorrecdy suggested by the Debtor in its Complaint.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a proceeding to determine whether the automatic stay was violated as a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy court may enter a final order.

In Re Bunting Bearings · filed 2003-06-06(b)(2)

As such a determination concerns whether the automatic stay has been violated, this is a core proceedings over which this Court has the jurisdictional authority to enter final orders.

Section 157(b) authorizes a bankruptcy court to decide whether to grant relief from the automatic stay even if the related state appeal may be untimely or ineffective.

Leesa Bunch v. Hoffinger Industries · filed 2003-06-02(b)(1), (b)(2)(G)

The matter of jurisdiction has to do only with "the court's statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case," United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630, 122 S.Ct. 1781, 152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002) (internal quotation omitted), which exists here pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), (b)(2)(G) and 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a)-(b), and is completely independent of whether or not the state notice of appeal actually was timely or otherwise effective. That is to say, even if the California Court of Appeals would lack jurisdiction over the relevant appeal, and thus annulling the stay would be fruitless, the bankruptcy court would still have jurisdiction to determine whether or not to grant relief from the stay.

Section 157(b)(2)(G) classifies actions to terminate, annul, or modify the automatic stay as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Carr v. McGriff · filed 2004-06-14(b)(2)(G)

Congress has declared that actions to terminate, annul, or modify the automatic stay are core bankruptcy proceedings (see In re Siskin, 258 BR 554, 561-562 [ED NY 2001]; 28 USC § 157 [b] [2] [G]). Consequently, it is undisputed that only a bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to terminate, annul, or modify the automatic stay (see In re Siskin, supra; see also Eastern Refractories Co. v Forty Eight Insulations, supra; Farley v Henson, 2 F3d 273 [8th Cir 1993]).

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

In re Haake · filed 2012-09-18(b)(2)(G)

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G), and the Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334.

Section 157(b)(2)(G) does not require a bankruptcy court ruling on relief from the automatic stay to decide whether the underlying dispute is core or non-core.

In re Jefferson County · filed 2012-12-19(b)(2)(G)

Contrary to the City Parties’ assertion in their supplemental brief, when ruling on a motion for relief from stay, this Court need not decide whether the underlying dispute between the City Parties and the County is a core or non-core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(G) classifies motions to annul the automatic stay as core bankruptcy proceedings.

In re Killmer · filed 2013-11-15(b)(2)(G)

This is a “core proceeding” under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A) (matters concerning the administration of the estate); (G) (motions to terminate, annul, or modify the automatic stay). ... Only this Court has jurisdiction to annul the automatic stay.

Section 157(b)(2)(G) treats a matter determining the application of the automatic stay as a core proceeding.

In re Edison Mission Energy · filed 2013-11-19(b)(2)(G)

A matter to determine the application of the automatic stay is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G).

Section 157(b)(2)(G) treats a motion to modify the automatic stay as a core proceeding.

In re Settlers' Housing Service, Inc. · filed 2014-01-16(b)(2)(G)

This matter is a motion to modify the automatic stay and is therefore a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G).

Section 157(b)(2)(G) treats motions to terminate, annul, or modify the automatic stay as core proceedings within a bankruptcy judge’s authority.

In re: Hamilton · filed 2020-01-06(b)(2)(G)

I have considered the other arguments in Hamilton’s brief and find them to be either not the proper subject of this appeal or without merit. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G) (refuting Hamilton’s argument that the bankruptcy judge lacked judicial power to terminate the automatic stay, since “Core proceedings [under title 11] include . . . motions to terminate, annul, or modify the automatic stay.”).

Section 157(b)(5) permits transfer of cases pending in state or federal court to the federal district court where the bankruptcy proceeding is pending.

T.B. v. USA Northeast Province of the Society of Jesus, Inc. · filed 2023-08-29(b)(5)

Section 157(b)(5) allows the transfer of cases pending in federal court and state court to the federal district court where a bankruptcy proceeding is pending.

Section 157(a) allows a district court’s standing order of reference to give a bankruptcy court authority to transfer a bankruptcy case to another district.

Bula Developments, Inc. · filed 2025-02-06(a)

It follows that the transfer power is subsumed in the standing orders of reference of district courts to bankruptcy courts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a).

Section 157(b)(5) permits cases pending in state or federal court to be transferred to the federal district court where a bankruptcy proceeding is pending.

Bilello v. Holy Trinity Diocesan High School · filed 2023-08-23(b)(5)

Section 157(b)(5) ... allows the transfer of cases pending in federal court and state court to the federal district court where a bankruptcy proceeding is pending.

Section 157(b)(5) allows cases pending in state or federal court to be transferred to the federal district court where a bankruptcy proceeding is pending.

Doe v. Franciscan Brothers of Brooklyn · filed 2023-08-23(b)(5)

Section 157(b)(5) ... allows the transfer of cases pending in federal court and state court to the federal district court where a bankruptcy proceeding is pending.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) authorizes a bankruptcy court to decide whether to transfer venue of an adversary proceeding as a matter concerning estate administration.

A.R.E. Manufacturing Co. v. D & M Nameplate, Inc. (In Re A.R.E. Manufacturing Co.) · filed 1991-03-07(b)(2)(A)

This Court agrees with recent decisions that hold that due to the automatic reference under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), the Bankruptcy Court is authorized to transfer venue pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 7087 and 28 U.S.C. § 1412.

A general reference under § 157(a) permits a transferred adversary proceeding to go directly to the receiving district’s bankruptcy court.

Jim Walter Resources, Inc. v. Belcher (In Re Hillsborough Holdings Corp.) · filed 1992-10-05(a)

Notwithstanding, both parties agree and there is no contention to the contrary, that it is proper for this Court to rule on the Motion and this Court may transfer this Adversary Proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1412 directly to another bankruptcy court bypassing the district court, provided, of course, that bankruptcy court to whom it is transferred also operates under the general reference issued by the district court of that district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a).

Section 157(a) permits a bankruptcy court acting under a general order of reference to exercise the district court’s authority to transfer a bankruptcy case filed in an improper venue.

In Re Henderson · filed 1996-05-06(a)

By virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), therefore, the bankruptcy court may exercise the power conferred on the district court by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1406 and 1412 to transfer cases filed in improper venue. Because both the Middle and Northern Districts of Alabama operate under general orders of reference, this Court may transfer the case directly to the bankruptcy court in the district in which venue is proper.

A bankruptcy court acting under § 157(a) may transfer an improperly venued case on its own initiative under §§ 1406(a) or 1412.

In Re Langston · filed 2003-04-10(a)

This Court, therefore, concludes that the district court, and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), the bankruptcy court, may sua sponte transfer a case filed in improper venue under either 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) or § 1412.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a contested motion concerning a debtor’s choice of venue as a core proceeding.

In Re Ross · filed 2004-08-04(b)(2)(A)

A contested motion concerning a debtor’s venue choice is a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A); Lawrence P. King, Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 4.04[1] (15th ed. revised 2004) [hereinafter “Collier”].