28 U.S.C. § 157

Section 157(b) does not classify a debtor’s state-law challenge to a lien on exempt property as a core proceeding.

Holmes v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. Ex Rel. Ameriquest Mortgage Securities, Inc. (In Re Holmes) · filed 2008-05-14(b)

Under these circumstances, an action to determine the validity of a lien against property allowed as exempt, in which non-bankruptcy law is invoked for substantive governance, is not a core proceeding.

Section 157(b) treats claims that fall within its listed categories and are integrally related to a creditor’s proof of claim as core proceedings triable by a bankruptcy judge.

Bankruptcy Services, Inc. v. Ernst & Young · filed 2008-06-16(b)

Because all of the claims asserted by BSI are covered by the language of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) and are integrally related to the Proof of Claim that E & Y voluntarily submitted against the estate, they are core proceedings triable by a bankruptcy judge.

A proceeding that requires deciding whether assets belong to the bankruptcy estate arises under title 11 and is a core proceeding.

Schroeder v. New Century Holdings, Inc. (In Re New Century Holdings, Inc.) · filed 2008-06-17(b)(1)

Therefore, this adversary proceeding requires a determination of ... whether the Plan Assets are property of the Debtors’ bankruptcy estate, and proceedings which require such a determination “arise under” title 11. Accordingly, this adversary proceeding is a core proceeding.

Section 157 treats a claim for damages from a willful automatic stay violation as a core proceeding because the claim arises under the Bankruptcy Code.

Johnson v. Smith (In Re Johnson) · filed 2008-07-10(b)

Since their claim is created by a provision of the Bankruptcy Code, it “arises under” the Code and the action for damages is a “core proceeding.” Core proceedings are uniquely within the province of the bankruptcy courts.

Section 157 treats proceedings that arise under or arise in a Title 11 case as core proceedings.

Suntrust Bank v. Roberson ( in Re Baseline Sports, Inc.) · filed 2008-08-01(b)

Because core proceedings are coextensive with that of proceedings that “arise under” or “arise in” a Title 11 case, if a proceeding “arises under” or “arises in” a Title 11 case, it is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to enter a final order on a motion to abstain and remand a removed, non-core related-to proceeding because the motion itself is a core matter.

Official Unsecured Creditors' Committee of Hearthside Baking Co. v. Cohen (In Re Hearthside Baking Co.) · filed 2008-08-04(b)(1)

A motion to abstain and remand a non-core “related to” proceeding previously removed to a bankruptcy court is a matter that, by its very nature, could exist only in connection with a bankruptcy case, and is a matter over which a bankruptcy court exercises core jurisdiction, with the authority to enter final orders therein.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a determination of whether state court civil claims are property of the bankruptcy estate as a core matter concerning estate administration.

Jenkins v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. (In Re Jenkins) · filed 2008-09-02(b)(2)(A)

The determination of whether state court civil claims are property of the estate is a matter concerning the administration of the estate and a “core” bankruptcy matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(1) lets a bankruptcy judge hear and decide referred core proceedings arising under title 11 or arising in a bankruptcy case.

Virginia Hospital Centerarlington Health System v. Akl (In Re Akl) · filed 2008-09-04(b)(1)

Upon a referral from the district court, § 157(b)(1) authorizes the bankruptcy judge in the bankruptcy case to hear and determine “all core proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in a case under title 11,” but, without the consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c), the bankruptcy judge may not both hear and determine a matter that is not a core proceeding and that is only an otherwise “related to” proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) covers dischargeability determinations, while section 157(b)(2)(O) covers proceedings affecting adjustment of debtor-creditor relationships.

Jones v. Cendant Mortgage Corp. (In Re Jones) · filed 2008-09-17(b)(2)(I), (b)(2)(O)

While this latter endeavor appears to he squarely within the scope of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0), it is not obvious that it also lies within the scope of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I). An action to determine the amount or legality of the additional tax debt IRS claims debtor owes would be a proceeding affecting the adjustment of a debtor-creditor relationship; it would not, however, be a proceeding to determine whether the debt is dischargeable in bankruptcy. They are altogether different types of undertakings.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) does not make a state law claim between nondebtors a core proceeding merely because the claimant filed a contingent proof of claim against the debtor.

In Re Exide Technologies · filed 2008-09-19(b)(2)(B)

The PDH Foreign Entities’ filing of contingent proofs of claim does not render the dispute between non-debtor plaintiffs and defendants “core.”

Filing a proof of claim against a debtor does not make separate state law claims against non-debtors core proceedings.

In Re: Exide Tech · filed 2008-09-19(b)(2)(B)

Therefore, we now hold that, by filing proofs of claim in Exide’s bankruptcy proceeding, the PDH Foreign Entities have not transformed their state law claims against non-debtor defendants into core matters that the Bankruptcy Court must resolve.

Section 157(b) authorizes a bankruptcy court to enter a final order or judgment in a core proceeding arising under or arising in a bankruptcy case.

Daimler Chrysler Financial Services Americas LLC v. Jones (In Re Jones) · filed 2008-09-29(b)

As a proceeding “arising in” as well as “arising under” a bankruptcy case, I FIND that the adversary proceeding qualified as a core proceeding for which the bankruptcy court was authorized to enter a final order or judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157(b)(1) does not treat a state-law guarantee claim between non-debtors as a core proceeding when it neither arises under title 11 nor arises in a bankruptcy case.

Joremi Enterprises, Inc. v. Hershkowitz (In Re New 118th LLC) · filed 2008-11-13(b)(1)

The Court plainly lacks core jurisdiction over the Guarantee Claim against Lobel. The cause of action did not arise under title 11, and did not arise in this bankruptcy case. It is a garden-variety state law claim between non-debtor parties.

Section 157(b)(2) does not treat a dispute over attorney fees between nondebtors as a core proceeding when it can be brought outside bankruptcy and will not affect the estate.

Langston Law Firm v. Mississippi · filed 2008-11-17(b)(2)

Section 157(b)(2) also sets out a nonexclusive list of sixteen core proceedings, which relate directly to a bankruptcy court’s functions, including a “catch-all provision[]” for “matters concerning the administration of the estate.” ... As this Court discussed earlier, this action is not a core proceeding and its resolution will not have any effect on the administration of the estate.

Section 157(b)(2) classifies proceedings to recover preferences and fraudulent conveyances or turn over estate property as core proceedings.

DeGirolamo v. Applegate (In Re Applegate) · filed 2008-11-20(b)(2)

This proceeding invokes substantive rights created by federal bankruptcy law, corresponding to the definitions of core proceedings in the above-cited subsections of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2): 11 U.S.C. § 547 (preferences), 11 U.S.C. § 548 (fraudulent conveyances), and 11 U.S.C. § 542 (turnover).

Section 157 treats a motion for relief from the automatic stay as a core bankruptcy matter.

In Re Aulicino · filed 2008-12-03(b)(2)(G)

Specifically, there has been no motion for mandatory abstention made but rather one for relief from stay, and relief from stay is expressly a core matter.

Section 157(b) does not classify a proceeding as core when it is only related to a bankruptcy case and neither arises under the Bankruptcy Code nor arises in the case.

Sharif v. IndyMac Bank (In Re Sharif) · filed 2008-12-15(b)

A proceeding that neither "arises under” the Bankruptcy Code nor "arises in” a bankruptcy case, but is only “related to” the bankruptcy case is not a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157 treats successor liability and alter ego claims targeting a nondebtor’s assets as non-core proceedings.

Rdm Holdings, Ltd v. Continental Plastics Co · filed 2008-12-16(b)

Successor liability and alter ego claims are not core proceedings because they are not claims against the assets of the estate and they do not deal with the relationship between a debtor and its creditors, but instead target the assets of a nondebtor.

In assessing whether claims are core proceedings under § 157(b)(2), a court considers whether asserted turnover and fraudulent-transfer claims depend on construing a state-law agreement.

Garner v. Todd (In Re Todd Entertainment) · filed 2008-11-26(b)(2)(E), (H)

The Trustee’s Suit is, at least in part, assertedly core. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E) and (H). Nevertheless, at bottom, both suits turn on the construction of the Agreement. ... The Todd Suit includes no true core claims. As the Trustee’s “core” claims in the Trustee’s Suit in fact depend upon the effect of the Agreement, the court concludes this factor is neutral.

Section 157(b) permits a bankruptcy court to make final determinations in a core proceeding involving a trustee’s Chapter 5 powers and related lien determinations.

Clark Contracting Services v. Finance (Clark Contracting Services, Inc.) · filed 2008-11-28(b)(1), (b)(2)(E)

Furthermore, because jurisdiction exists under these narrower categories of bankruptcy jurisdiction, involving an exercise of a trustee’s chapter 5 powers and a subordinate determination of the extent, validity, and priority of Wells Fargo’s liens, this is a core proceeding for which this court may hear and make final determinations.

Section 157(b)(2) does not classify a debtor’s challenge to a foreclosure governed by state law as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Barsness v. Wilshire Credit Corp. (In Re Barsness) · filed 2008-12-19(b)(2)

The requests for relief in the Debtor’s letter-complaint did not commence a core proceeding in her bankruptcy case. Any challenge she made to Wil-shire’s compliance with governing law during its foreclosure proceedings was to be decided exclusively with reference to Minnesota authority, under statute and case law.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a proceeding addressing an attorney's frivolous assertions in a core claim objection as a core proceeding.

In Re Brooks-Hamilton · filed 2009-01-21(b)(2)(A)

Because Smyth's objection to Oakland's claim constituted a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), the OSC itself, which was set to address Smyth's frivolous assertions in the objection, constituted a core proceeding.

Section 157(b) treats an adversary proceeding as core when its bankruptcy causes of action predominate.

Russell v. Queen City Furniture (In Re Russell) · filed 2009-01-23(b)

To that end, the Court finds that the bankruptcy causes of action asserted in the Debtors’ Complaint predominate and, accordingly, the Adversary constitutes a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2) treats proceedings concerning liens, fraudulent conveyances, and turnover of estate property as core matters in which a bankruptcy court may enter final orders and judgments.

Jones v. Anderson · filed 2009-01-23(b)(2)(E), (H), and (K)

The BAP properly concluded that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to enter final orders and judgments in the adversary proceedings because the proceedings were core matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E), (H), and (K) (defining core matters to include those that determine the validity, extent, or priority of liens; that determine, avoid or recover fraudulent conveyances; and actions to turn over property to the estate).

Section 157(b)(2) identifies core proceedings, including matters concerning administration of the bankruptcy estate and other proceedings related to bankruptcy cases.

Raymond Professional Group, Inc. v. William A. Pope Co. (In Re Raymond Professional Group, Inc.) · filed 2009-02-10(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(O)

Count VI is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (0).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) makes matters concerning bankruptcy estate administration core proceedings that a bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

In Re Lexington Hearth Lamp and Leisure, LLC · filed 2009-02-17(b)(2)(A)

This is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), which this Court may hear and determine.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats administrative matters in bankruptcy cases as core proceedings.

Wilborn v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In Re Wilborn) · filed 2009-02-17(b)(2)(A)

This proceeding is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A). Additionally, this proceeding is a core proceeding under the general “catch-all” language of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157 authorizes bankruptcy judges to hear and determine core proceedings and identifies the core proceedings covered by subsection (b)(2).

In Re Wilson · filed 2009-02-06(b)(1), (b)(2)(A), (G), (K), and (O)

Section 157(b)(1) provides that “[b]ank-ruptcy judges 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, referred under section (a) of this section, and may enter appropriate orders and judgments, subject to review under section 158 of this title.” ... The Court finds that this is a core bankruptcy matter under § 157(b)(2)(A), (G), (K), and (O).

Section 157(b)(2)(A), (H), and (O) identifies certain bankruptcy matters as core proceedings.

Webb Mtn, LLC v. Executive Realty Partnership (In Re Webb Mtn, LLC) · filed 2009-02-11(b)(2)(A), (H), and (O)

This is a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (H), and (O) (2005).

Section 157 treats a determination whether a particular debt was discharged as a core proceeding in which a bankruptcy judge may enter a final judgment or order.

Collins v. Internal Revenue Service (In Re Collins) · filed 2009-03-10(b)(2)(I)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(R, a determination as to whether a particular debt has been discharged is a core proceeding in which a final judgment or order may be entered by a bankruptcy judge.

Section 157(b) identifies core bankruptcy proceedings; claims that do not qualify as core are classified as non-core.

LEAD I JV, LP v. North Fork Bank · filed 2009-03-11(b)

28 U.S.C. § 157(b) provides a non-exclusive list of matters that Congress considered to be within the bankruptcy court’s core jurisdiction. ... For the reasons set forth below, the Court find that Plaintiffs’s claims are non-core and thus Plaintiffs have satisfied the third element for mandatory abstention.

A debtor’s fraud counterclaim is noncore under § 157(b)(2) when it neither arises under title 11 nor falls within an enumerated core proceeding.

New Jersey Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection v. Fornaro (In Re Fornaro) · filed 2009-03-12(b)(2)

In the instant case, Ms. Forna-ro’s counterclaim is not a “core” proceeding, as it does not arise under title 11, nor does it fall under the enumerated proceedings listed in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear and determine a claim to enforce a discharge injunction as a core proceeding arising under the Bankruptcy Code.

Harlan v. Rosenberg & Associates, LLC (In Re Harlan) · filed 2009-03-25(b)(1)

Here, the Debtors’ claim that the Defendants violated the discharge injunction implicates a right that exists solely because the Debtors obtained a discharge in bankruptcy. Such proceeding is a core proceeding “arising under” the Bankruptcy Code. This Court therefore has subject matter jurisdiction over the First Claim of the Debtors’ Amended Complaint pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

Section 157 treats an attorney fee application intertwined with a bankruptcy case as a core proceeding over which the bankruptcy court retains jurisdiction after dismissal and payment of the judgment.

Miller v. Adell (In Re John Richards Homes Building Co.) · filed 2009-03-30(b)

The consideration of attorney fees is a core proceeding arising in a case under title 11, as described by 28 U.S.C. § 157, as it is inextricably intertwined with the bankruptcy case itself, which is undoubtedly a core proceeding. Bankruptcy courts retain jurisdiction of core proceedings following the dismissal of the underlying case and following the payment of the judgment.

Section 157 treats a sanctions request inextricably intertwined with a bankruptcy case as a core proceeding that the bankruptcy court may consider after dismissal and payment of the judgment.

John Richards Homes Building Co. v. Adell · filed 2009-03-30(b)

As a preliminary matter, the Court finds that, contrary to Adell’s position, the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to consider a request for punitive damages even after the dismissal of the involuntary petition and payment of the judgment. The consideration of sanctions is a core proceeding arising in a case under title 11, as described by 28 U.S.C. § 157, as it is inextricably intertwined with the bankruptcy case itself, which is undoubtedly a core proceeding.

Section 157 treats a proceeding as core when it involves a cause of action created by title 11 or could arise only in a bankruptcy case.

Walker v. Creative Loans, LLC (In Re Walker) · filed 2009-04-16(b)(2)

They are not core proceedings. A core proceeding is a proceeding “arising under” title 11 and must involve a cause of action created by a statutory provision of title 11 or a proceeding which, by its nature, could only arise in the context of a bankruptcy case.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) covers a claim objection as a core matter concerning administration of the estate when no plan has been confirmed and the estate still exists.

In Re Perry · filed 2009-04-21(b)(2)(A)

No plan of reorganization has been confirmed in this Chapter 11 case. Therefore, the bankruptcy estate still exists such that this claim objection dispute is a ''matter[] concerning the administration of the estate” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats an attorney disciplinary hearing as a core proceeding when the conduct arose during representation in matters central to administering the debtor’s case.

Price v. Lehtinen · filed 2009-04-28(b)(2)(A)

Although Price argues that the proceeding is non-core, the acts and events upon which his suspension was predicated occurred in the course of his representation of debtor in matters central to the administration of her case. As such, the disciplinary hearing fits well within the ambit of a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2) treats dismissal of a bankruptcy case as a core proceeding because it affects discharge and the creditor-debtor relationship.

In Re Durczynski · filed 2009-04-29(b)(2)

Matters concerning the dismissal of a case, which affects both the ability of a debtor to receive a discharge and directly affects the creditor-debtor relationship, are core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(J)/(0).

Section 157(b) treats an independent state-law dispute between non-debtor parties as a non-core proceeding when it neither arises under title 11 nor arises in a title 11 case.

In Re Colleen, Inc. · filed 2009-05-22(b)

As an initial matter, this Court does not believe that the Civil Action is a core proceeding. [1] The Court derives its subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334 [2] and may hear and determine all core proceedings arising under title 11 (the Bankruptcy Code) or arising in a case under title 11. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). [3] The Civil Action does not arise under or arise in a case under the Bankruptcy Code; it is a case between non-debtor third parties and involves non-property of the estate.

Section 157(b)(1) does not treat state-law claims that exist independently of a bankruptcy case as core proceedings.

Global Express Money Orders, Inc. v. Farmers & Merchants Bank · filed 2009-05-22(b)(1)

The Civil Action exists independently of the Colleen bankruptcy case—the causes of action asserted in that case are not dependent on Colleen ever having filed for bankruptcy protection. Thus, because the claims alleged in the Civil Action have independent existence apart from the bankruptcy case, the Civil Action does not arise under or arise in this bankruptcy case.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats matters concerning the administration of a Chapter 13 estate that remains open after confirmation as core proceedings.

In Re Rangel · filed 2009-05-29(b)(2)(A)

These matters “concern! ] the administration of the estate” under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) because, in Chapter 13 cases, the estate continues to exist even after a plan is confirmed.

Section 157(b)(3) provides that the presence of state law issues does not alter a proceeding’s core status.

Crown Village Farm, LLC v. Arl, L.L.C. (In Re Crown Village Farm, LLC) · filed 2009-06-12(b)(3)

Although Defendants are correct that the Adversary Proceeding involves questions of Maryland law, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3) establishes that the presence of issues affected by state law does not alter the core nature of a proceeding.

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

In Re Wahlie · filed 2009-06-16(b)

Determinations concerning the dismissal of a case, which affects both the ability of a debtor to receive a discharge and directly affects the creditor-debtor relationship, are core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 (b)(2)(J)/(0), thereby conferring upon this Court jurisdiction to enter final orders and judgments.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a motion to clarify a Chapter 11 plan confirmed by the bankruptcy court as a core proceeding.

In Re Mal Dunn Associates, Inc. · filed 2009-06-18(b)(2)

This is a “core proceeding” under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) because the Motion requests clarification of a Chapter 11 plan confirmed by this Court.

Section 157(b)(2) treats proceedings to interpret claim allowance and plan confirmation orders, and to enforce the automatic stay, as core proceedings.

In Re Fort · filed 2009-06-30(b)(2)

The Court concludes that it seems inescapable that determinations regarding the interpretation and legal effect of its orders allowing or disallowing filed claims and confirming chapter 13 plans as well as the enforcement of the automatic stay in bankruptcy are likewise "core" proceedings pursuant to those sub-sections and § 157(b)(2)(O) relating to "adjustment of the debtor-creditor ... relationship."

Section 157(b)(2)(O) generally requires a claim affecting estate assets or debtor-creditor relations also to arise under title 11 or in a bankruptcy case to be core.

Longhorn Partners Pipeline L.P. v. KM Liquids Terminals, L.L.C. · filed 2009-06-30(b)(2)(O)

Under Marathon and the Fifth Circuit’s In re Wood opinion, § 157(b)(2)(0) issues generally must be limited to claims that arise under title 11 or arise in a case under title 11 in addition to having an affect on estate assets and debtor-creditor relations.

Section 157(b)(2) treats proceedings to interpret claim allowance and plan confirmation orders, and to enforce the automatic stay, as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Fort v. State of Florida Department of Revenue · filed 2009-06-30(b)(2)

The Court concludes that it seems inescapable that determinations regarding the interpretation and legal effect of its orders allowing or disallowing filed claims and confirming chapter 13 plans as well as the enforcement of the automatic stay in bankruptcy are likewise “core” proceedings pursuant to those sub-sections and § 157(b)(2)(0) relating to “adjustment of the debtor-creditor ... relationship.”

Section 157 treats enforcement of an order from a core bankruptcy proceeding as a core proceeding.

Casarotto v. Missouri Department of Revenue (In Re Casarotto) · filed 2009-07-06(b)(2)

This dispute does not merely concern a related matter because “the enforcement of orders resulting from core proceedings are themselves considered core proceedings.” Williams v. Citifinancial Mortgage Co. (In re Williams), 256 B.R. 885, 892 (8th Cir. BAP 2001).

Section 157(b)(2) treats a fraudulent transfer suit under 11 U.S.C. § 548 as a core proceeding because it can arise only in a bankruptcy case.

Floyd v. Option One Mortgage Corp. (In Re Supplement Spot, LLC) · filed 2009-07-07(b)(2)

The Court acknowledges that a fraudulent transfer suit filed under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (the TUFTA) is not a proceeding that could arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case. However, a fraudulent transfer suit filed under 11 U.S.C. § 548 is such a proceeding, and this is why this particular adversary proceeding is a core proceeding under the general "catch all” language of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

A dispute over a prepetition contract is a core proceeding when it is closely connected to the bankruptcy process and plan confirmation.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Charter Communications Operating, LLC (In Re Charter Communications) · filed 2009-07-09(b)(2)

Although the instant adversary proceeding relates to asserted breaches of a pre-petition agreement — a factor which “weighs against finding core status” — the close interconnection between the adversary proceeding and the bankruptcy process overwhelmingly renders this dispute core.

Section 157(b) does not classify an ordinary state law contract dispute that exists outside bankruptcy as a core proceeding.

Fruit of the Loom, Inc. v. Magnetek, Inc. (In Re Fruit of the Loom, Inc.) · filed 2009-07-15(b)

Seventh, the instant adversary proceeding is not a “core” proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). ... The instant adversary proceeding does not “arise in” a case under the Bankruptcy Code: the ordinary contract dispute exists outside of bankruptcy. Thus, the adversary proceeding is not a “core” proceeding, and this factor favors abstention.

Section 157(b)(2)’s listed categories do not exhaust core proceedings; a dispute over orders rejecting leases and assigning subleases can also be core.

Republic Underwriters Insurance v. DBSI Republic, LLC (In Re DBSI, Inc.) · filed 2009-08-10(b)(2)

Moreover, even if the instant proceeding does not fall within one of § 157(b)(2)’s enumerated categories, I find that it is a “core” proceeding. Republic challenges the effect of orders that sought to reject certain leases and assume and assign certain subleases pursuant to § 365. The rejection and assumption and assignment of leases and executory contracts are fundamental issues of bankruptcy law unique to the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 157(b) treats proceedings arising under title 11 or arising in a bankruptcy case as core proceedings; claims that can exist outside bankruptcy do not qualify on that basis.

Vienneau v. Saxon Capital, Inc. (In Re Vienneau) · filed 2009-08-12(b)

Together, proceedings that “arise in” and “arise under” title 11 constitute the bankruptcy court’s “core” jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b); Id. at 96-97. None of Counts III through VIII come within the Court’s core jurisdiction. They are not causes of action created by the Bankruptcy Code; each of them can exist outside of the bankruptcy case.

A debtor’s preconfirmation adversary proceeding concerning a proof of claim is a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2).

Perry v. One Sugar Lakes Professional Centre Partners, L.P. (In Re Perry) · filed 2009-08-12(b)(2)

This proceeding is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B). Additionally, because the Debtor initiated this adversary proceeding before its plan was confirmed, this proceeding is also a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A) and (O).

Section 157(b)(2) treats dismissal of a bankruptcy case as a core proceeding when it affects the debtor’s discharge and the creditor-debtor relationship.

In Re Ramlow · filed 2009-08-21(b)(2)

Matters concerning the dismissal of a case, which affects both the ability of a debtor to receive a discharge and directly affects the creditor-debtor relationship, are core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(J)/(0).

Section 157(b)(2) treats proceedings concerning claims against the estate, lien priority, and alleged abuses of the bankruptcy process as core proceedings.

Harker v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA (In Re Krause) · filed 2009-09-02(b)(2)

This adversary proceeding is a core proceeding because it concerns substantive bankruptcy issues which can only arise in the bankruptcy context: allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate, determination, extent and priority of liens and, and the consideration of whether Wells Fargo's actions in allegedly misrepresenting its status in motions for relief from stay constitute an abuse of the bankruptcy process.

Section 157(b) does not treat state law landlord-tenant claims as core proceedings in substance merely because they concern property of a bankruptcy estate.

Taub v. Hershkowitz (In Re Taub) · filed 2009-09-21(b)

Here, the claims asserted in the Complaint and Counterclaims do not, in substance, “arise under” the Bankruptcy Code, or “arise in” this bankruptcy case. Rather, they have their roots in the Rent Stabilization Law, and could arise outside the context of this bankruptcy case. As such, while it may be possible to characterize this action as a core proceeding in form, it is not a core proceeding in substance.

An insurance contract dispute is a core proceeding when a post-petition settlement and confirmed plan alter the parties’ rights and make resolution necessary to distribute estate assets.

Joe Gibson's Auto World, Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance (In Re Joe Gibson's Auto World, Inc.) · filed 2009-09-30(b)(2)(O)

Although the adversary began with pre-petition facts and contracts that are independent of the bankruptcy, it has since evolved to include essential post-petition events and law unique to Title 11 and the adjustment of debtor/creditor relationships by the plan confirmation process. ... That the matters presented to the Court in this adversary case are core proceedings as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0).

Section 157(b)(1) treats a prepetition contract dispute as a core proceeding when its issues are closely intertwined with the bankruptcy process.

Bank of America, N.A. v. Lightstone Holdings, LLC (In Re Extended Stay Inc.) · filed 2009-10-07(b)(1)

Although the state court action relates to asserted breaches of a prepetition agreement, which factor generally weighs against finding core status, the close interconnection between the issues raised by the action and the bankruptcy process overwhelmingly renders this dispute core.

Section 157(b) does not classify a corporation’s damages claim as a core proceeding merely because a bankruptcy debtor is its sole shareholder.

In Re Carlson · filed 2009-10-09(b)

The enumeration in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) does not include a claim for damages brought in the name of a corporation of which a debtor in bankruptcy is the sole shareholder. The “catch-all” provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A) and (0) could not be defensively construed to encompass it.

A claim that is not created by bankruptcy law and could arise outside bankruptcy is not a core proceeding under § 157(b)(1).

Newlin v. Winchester (In Re Newlin) · filed 2009-10-21(b)(1)

The Superior Court Claims are not created by bankruptcy law, nor are they of such nature that they would only arise in bankruptcy. Thus, the Superior Court Claims are clearly not core proceedings and, because the outcome of the action, including the Trustee’s Counterclaim, can have no effect on the bankruptcy estate, it is not sufficiently related to the bankruptcy case to justify retention of the same by the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157(b)(2) treats proceedings over whether sale proceeds belong to the bankruptcy estate and whether a creditor has a valid lien as core proceedings.

Marin v. Sanders · filed 2009-10-29(b)(2)

The bankruptcy court properly concluded that the adversary proceeding was a core proceeding because it concerned whether the estate included money from the sale and whether Marin had a valid lien.

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

In Re McClellan · filed 2009-10-30(b)

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

Section 157 does not classify claims arising from a debtor’s continued use of a franchisor’s mark after alleged termination as core proceedings.

Century 21 Real Estate, LLC v. Prestige Realty Group of Ohio & Florida, LLC (In Re Prestige Realty Group of Ohio & Flori · filed 2009-11-13

While the Court does not agree that Century 21’s claims against the Debtor are core claims, ... at the least, the Court has related to jurisdiction over the claims.

Section 157(b)(2) does not classify a proceeding as core when its claims arise under nonbankruptcy law and can exist outside bankruptcy.

Allard v. Coenen (In Re Trans-Industries, Inc.) · filed 2009-11-13(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(O)

Under Sixth Circuit case law, because this adversary proceeding does not meet either the “arising under” or “arising in” jurisdictional requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 1334(b), it necessarily cannot fall within 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) or § 157(b)(2)(0), the two statutory examples of core proceedings on which Allard relies.

Section 157 does not classify a dispute over a third party’s assets as a core proceeding in a debtor’s case when the dispute involves neither the debtor’s legal relationships nor estate assets.

Polaroid Corp. v. Acorn Capital Group, LLC (In Re Polaroid Corp.) · filed 2009-11-23(b)(1)-(3)

This issue is not even cognizable in the Polaroid Plaintiffs’ bankruptcy cases: it does not arise out of a debtor-creditor relationship to which the Polaroid Plaintiffs are a contractual or legal party, and it does not concern assets of their bankruptcy estates. Hence, this component of the counterclaim cannot constitute a “core proceeding” in the cases underlying this adversary proceeding, in the jurisdictional terms of 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) and the classifications of 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(l)-(3).

Section 157(b)(2) covers a motion for sanctions for violating the automatic stay when the requested relief is integral to the bankruptcy court’s authority to enforce its orders.

In Re Wvf Acquisition, LLC · filed 2009-12-02(b)(2)

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A) and (0), and because the relief requested is “integrally involved in the bankruptcy court’s authority to enforce its own orders.”

Section 157(b) does not classify a dispute over lien and trust rights between nondebtors as a core proceeding when its effect on the bankruptcy estate is too attenuated.

In Re Semcrude, Lp · filed 2010-04-09(b)

Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that the claims relating to an adjudication or declaration of the rights of the Downstream Purchasers vis-á-vis the Producers, which are the subject of the pending Motions to Dismiss, are not core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157(b) does not classify a dispute over lien and trust rights between nondebtors as a core proceeding merely because it may affect the bankruptcy estate.

ConocoPhillips Co. v. SemGroup, L.P. (In re SemCrude, L.P.) · filed 2010-04-09(b)

Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that the claims relating to an adjudication or declaration of the rights of the Downstream Purchasers vis-a-vis the Producers, which are the subject of the pending Motions to Dismiss, are not core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157(b)(2)(K) does not make a TILA claim a core proceeding merely because the requested rescission would affect a lien’s validity.

Dixon v. Household Realty Corp. (In Re Dixon) · filed 2010-04-14(b)(2)(K)

However, it is only the remedy that brings the claim within the language of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b), and this remedy alone cannot convert her TILA claims into a core proceeding.

Section 157 does not treat a contractual guaranty action against a nondebtor as a core bankruptcy proceeding merely because the debtor is in bankruptcy.

Schumacher v. White · filed 2010-04-29(b)(1)

This action is not a “core proceeding” arising under Title 11 of the U.S.Code, as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157(b) permits a proceeding to be treated as core when bankruptcy causes of action predominate, even if some claims arise under other law.

Zimmerli v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC · filed 2010-06-22(b)

The proceedings with respect to the Adversary are core pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). ... Thus, the Court finds that the bankruptcy causes of action predominate and that the Adversary constitutes a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2) treats proceedings concerning estate administration and the liquidation of estate assets as core proceedings.

In Re Gonzalez · filed 2010-06-24(b)(2)

Section 157(b)(2) sets forth a non exhaustive list of matters considered as core proceedings. Plaintiffs allege that this complaint is a core proceeding because it pertains to matters concerning the administration of the estate and because this proceeding affects the liquidation of the assets of the estate. We agree. The relief sought in the complaint directly relates to sections 362, 544, 548 and 549 of the Bankruptcy Code. Accordingly, the allegations made in the complaint have a direct impact on the Chapter 7 bankruptcy estate.

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to enter final orders in core proceedings, including requests under 11 U.S.C. § 105 to enjoin litigation.

Gander Partners LLC v. Harris Bank, N.A. (In Re Gander Partners LLC) · filed 2010-07-16(b)(1)

This court agrees with the following courts that ruled that proceedings involving requests to enjoin litigation pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 105 are core proceedings over which bankruptcy judges have authority to enter final orders: Walsh v. Abrams (In re HBG Servicenter, Inc.), 45 B.R. 668, 671 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y. 1985) and Baptist Med. Ctr. of New York v. Singh, 80 B.R. 637, 645 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y. 1987).

Section 157 treats proceedings involving rights arising under title 11 as core proceedings, including a buyer’s acquired rights under § 544.

Mata v. Eclipse Aerospace, Inc. (In Re AE Liquidation, Inc.) · filed 2010-08-04(b)(1)

Cases under title 11, proceedings arising under title 11, and proceedings arising in a case under title 11 are core proceedings. ... Rights under section 544 arise under title 11, and therefore, the Court concludes that it has subject matter jurisdiction over those rights.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) does not make a disputed contract debt a core proceeding merely because the debtor pleads it as turnover.

DHP Holdings II Corp. v. Peter Skop Industries, Inc. (In Re DHP Holdings II Corp.) · filed 2010-08-13(b)(2)(E)

The Court finds that the turnover proceeding is non-core. While section 542 allows a debtor to recover matured debts, PSI disputes that the underlying debt is due. Therefore, the Court finds that this dispute is not properly brought under section 542. The action is non-core because it is “nothing more than a state law breach of contract claim disguised in bankruptcy terms.”

Section 157 treats determining whether a debtor owes a creditor a debt, and its amount, as a core proceeding when done for claims resolution or a nondischargeability action.

In Re Hermoyian · filed 2010-08-25(b)(2)(B) and (I)

The determination of a debt owed by the debtor to a creditor, whether for purposes of claims resolution in the bankruptcy estate, or for purposes of determining non-discharge-ability under § 523 of the Bankruptcy Code is a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) and (I).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (H) treats a motion to dismiss statutory fraudulent transfer claims as a core proceeding, supporting their litigation in bankruptcy court despite a contractual forum selection clause.

Charys Liquidating Trust v. McMahan Securities Co. (In Re Charys Holding Co.) · filed 2010-08-27(b)(2)(A), (H)

Consideration of the Motion constitutes a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (H). ... Here, Plaintiffs’ claims are core matters arising by operation of statute and not from a pre-petition contract. ... As a result, Plaintiffs are not bound by the forum selection clause and may litigate their fraudulent transfer claims in this Court.

Section 157(b)(2)(O) treats a proceeding affecting liquidation of estate assets or adjustment of debtor-creditor relationships as a core proceeding.

In Re Pearl Companies, Inc. · filed 2010-09-02(b)(2)(O)

Contrary to the Union’s assertion, this arbitration is a proceeding “affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate or the adjustment of the debtor-creditor or the equity security holder relationship,” and is therefore a core proceeding.

Section 157(b) treats claims for violations of the automatic stay as core bankruptcy matters.

Lambert v. Schwab (In Re Lambert) · filed 2010-09-03(b)

In that regard, I have little hesitancy to conclude that I indeed have jurisdiction to adjudicate violations of the automatic stay. Relief in favor of the debtor is specifically provided for in 11 U.S.C. § 362(k). It most assuredly is a core bankruptcy matter as that term is utilized in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a dispute that directly affects estate administration, including plan formulation, as a core proceeding even if it involves a prepetition contract.

Five Mile Capital II SPE ESH LLC v. Cerberus Capital Management (In Re Extended Stay Inc.) · filed 2010-09-07(b)(2)(A)

Here, although the dispute as plead in state court focuses on the rights and obligations of the parties to a pre-petition contract under the terms of that document, Five Mile’s efforts to prevent the Debtors from pursuing ongoing post-filing negotiations in their reorganization proceeding clearly implicate the core bankruptcy function of estate administration, particularly plan formulation.

A removed state law partnership dispute that has no effect on the bankruptcy estate is noncore under § 157(b).

Winchester v. Newlin · filed 2010-09-08(b)(1)

Furthermore, the Superior Court Claims are not core proceedings, and therefore, can have no effect on the bankruptcy estate.

Section 157 does not require a proceeding to immediately allow or disallow claims for it to qualify as a core proceeding.

Ace American Insurance v. DPH Holdings Corp. (In Re DPH Holdings Corp.) · filed 2010-09-09(b)(2)

The Court divines no requirement from the case law, as the Michigan Defendants’ arguments here would suggest, that in order to constitute a core proceeding under § 157, the immediate result of a bankruptcy proceeding must be the automatic allowance or disallowance of claims.

Section 157(b)(2)(O) treats a dispute affecting liquidation of estate assets as a core proceeding.

Parker v. MSB Energy, Inc. (In Re MSB Energy, Inc.) · filed 2010-09-14(b)(2)(O)

Accordingly, the dispute at bar is a proceeding “affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate” under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0).

Section 157(b) makes turnover of estate property a core proceeding that bankruptcy judges may hear and determine.

Lan-Anh Truong V. · filed 2010-10-06(b)

The bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to order the turnover of trust proceeds because an order to turn over property of the estate is enumerated as a core bankruptcy proceeding, which bankruptcy judges are specifically empowered to hear and determine. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157(b)(1) does not make a state law contract claim that exists independently of bankruptcy a core proceeding arising under the Bankruptcy Code.

Battle Ground Plaza, LLC v. Ray (In Re Ray) · filed 2010-10-25(b)(1)

Section 157(b)(1) provides that “Bank- ruptcy judges may hear and determine all cases under title 11 and all core proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in a case under title 11” that are referred to it by the district court. ... Because the theory of its claim is a state law contract action independent of the bankruptcy case, BG Plaza’s claim against the Sellers is not one “arising under” the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 157(b)(2) does not treat a state law contract claim that can exist outside bankruptcy as a core proceeding.

Battle Ground Plaza, LLC v. Ray · filed 2010-10-25(b)(2)

Here, BG Plaza’s claim for breach of contract arising out of the Sellers’ purported failure to comply with the right of first refusal does not, “by its nature ... arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case.”

Section 157 gives a bankruptcy court core jurisdiction over a trustee’s requests to retain and compensate professionals for administering an employee benefit plan, even if payment may come from assets outside the bankruptcy estate.

In Re Robert Plan Corp. · filed 2010-10-26(b)(1)

This Court has jurisdiction to authorize these requests as they constitute core matters arising in the Debtors’ bankruptcy cases. The fact that the Trustee may seek payment of an award of this Court from non-estate assets does not limit or alter the Court’s jurisdiction to make such an award.

Section 157 treats an unjust enrichment claim arising from a bankruptcy settlement as core, but an equitable subrogation claim arising outside bankruptcy as noncore.

McCabe v. Braunstein · filed 2010-10-28(b)(1)

This Court AFFIRMS the bankruptcy court’s determination that the unjust enrichment claim is a core matter and REVERSES the determination that the equitable subrogation claim is a core matter.

Section 157(b)(2) treats claims that arise only in a bankruptcy case and fall within its listed categories as core proceedings.

Cadence Innovation LLC v. Delta Tooling Co. (In Re Cadence Innovation LLC) · filed 2010-12-13(b)(2)

The Debtors’ claims against Defendant in, the adversary proceeding are clearly of a nature which could arise only in a bankruptcy case, and also are enumerated as “core” in 28 U.S.C. Section 157(b)(2).

Section 157 treats a dispute too remote from the bankruptcy case as noncore.

Arrow Oil & Gas, Inc. v. J. Aron & Co. (In re Semcrude, L.P.) · filed 2010-12-13(b)(1)

Accordingly, for the same reasons stated in the April 9 Opinion, the Court finds that the transferred action at bar specifically involving the Non-Tender Parties is likewise too remote from the Debtors’ consolidated bankruptcy cases to be called core.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) covers a creditor’s attorney’s charging lien on estate assets held for distribution as a matter concerning estate administration.

In Re Estate LaRosa · filed 2011-01-14(b)(2)(A)

The court finds that the better reasoned view is that a creditor’s attorney’s charging lien on assets of the bankruptcy estate is an interest in the bankruptcy estate’s property, which is subject to the court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), inasmuch as the court’s determination as to who is to receive a distribution of estate assets concerns the administration of the bankruptcy estate, and § 157(b)(2)(E), inasmuch as a claim of an attorney’s charging lien in .proceeds held for distribution by the bankruptcy estate requires the court to determine the validity, extent, or priority of liens in property being held by the bankruptcy estate.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a dispute based solely on an unredacted proof of claim filed in the debtor’s bankruptcy case as a core proceeding.

Dunbar v. Cox Health Alliance, LLC (In Re Dunbar) · filed 2011-01-21(b)(2)

In any case, because the complaint in this case is based solely on an unredacted proof of claim filed by the Defendant in the Debtor’s bankruptcy case, the Court finds this is a core matter.

Section 157 treats interpretation of what was sold under a bankruptcy sale order as a core proceeding.

Post-Confirmation Trust v. Berry (In Re Fleming Companies, Inc.) · filed 2011-02-02

Any interpretation of what was sold under the APA and Sale Order is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a dispute requiring interpretation or enforcement of a confirmed bankruptcy plan and confirmation order as a core proceeding arising in the bankruptcy case.

Moelis & Co. v. Wilmington Trust FSB (In Re General Growth Properties, Inc.) · filed 2011-02-25(b)(2)

Because interpretation, construction and enforcement of the Plan and confirmation order is implicated by the State Court Action, the State Court Action is a core proceeding “arising in” this bankruptcy case.

A dispute concerning the interpretation and execution of a confirmed plan is a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(L).

In Re MPF Holding U.S. LLC · filed 2011-02-28(b)(2)(L)

This dispute is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(L) because the dispute relates to the Plan—specifically, to the interpretation and execution of the Plan.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats allowance or disallowance of claims against the bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding.

Rowe v. Louisville Galleria, LLC (In Re Thirteenth Floor Entertainment Center, LLC) · filed 2011-03-01(b)(2)(B)

Defendant's counterclaim against Plaintiff is clearly a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2)(L) treats orders approving or denying confirmation of a plan as core proceedings.

Schermerhorn v. CenturyTel, Inc. (In Re Skyport Global Communications, Inc.) · filed 2011-03-31(b)(2)(L)

This particular dispute is also a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(L) and the general “catch-all” language of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

400 Walnut Associates, L.P. v. 4th Walnut Associates, L.P. (In Re 400 Walnut Associates, L.P.) · filed 2011-03-31(b)(2)(B)

As this matter involves an objection to a claim, it is within this Court’s core jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) (designating as "core,” allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate).

Section 157(b)(2) classifies plan confirmation as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

In Re Connector 2000 Ass'n, Inc. · filed 2011-04-01(b)(2)

Confirmation of the Plan constitutes a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2), and the Bankruptcy Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether the Plan complies with the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and should be confirmed.

Section 157(b)(2) does not classify claims arising independently of bankruptcy law under the FDCPA and state debt collection law as core proceedings.

Atwood v. GE Money Bank (In Re Atwood) · filed 2011-04-07(b)(2)

Plaintiffs claims under the FDCPA, the NM-UPA, and New Mexico common law do not raise substantive rights created under bankruptcy law, can exist independently of a pending bankruptcy case, and are not otherwise defined as core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (B) treat estate administration and the allowance or disallowance of claims as core proceedings.

In Re Rottiers · filed 2011-04-12(b)(2)(A) & (B)

This is a core proceeding concerning both the administration of the estate and allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) & (B).

Section 157(b)(2)(H) treats a proceeding to avoid fraudulent transfers as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Geltzer v. Mooney (In Re MacMenamin's Grill Ltd.) · filed 2011-04-21(b)(2)(H)

The Court has jurisdiction over this proceeding, arising under sections 544 and 548 of the Bankruptcy Code, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 157(a). This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H).

Section 157(b)(2) classifies proceedings involving dischargeability, estate administration, turnover, and lien validity and priority as core proceedings.

In RE McGUIRE · filed 2011-04-27(b)(2)

As Plaintiffs' complaint involves a dischargeability determination, as well as matters concerning the administration of the estate—including a potential turnover order and a determination as to the validity and priority of a lien—this matter is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(J), (A), (E), and (K).

Section 157 treats an attorney fee claim as a core proceeding to the extent it seeks fees for core equitable subordination and preference claims.

Antioch Co. Litigation Trust v. Morgan (In Re Antioch Co.) · filed 2011-04-28(b)(2)

While the parties stipulated that Count 15 is a non-core claim (Docs. 225 & 226), the court determines that Count 15 concerning the recovery of attorney fees is a core proceeding to the extent it seeks attorney fees under the equitable subordination and preference claims set forth in Counts 13 and 14.

Section 157(b)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to issue an order or judgment in a core proceeding concerning estate administration, plan confirmation, or the sale of estate property.

Lefkowitz v. Michigan Trucking, LLC (In Re Gainey Corp.) · filed 2011-05-06(b)(2)

The complaint is a core proceeding and this court may issue an appropriate order or judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) (matters concerning estate administration), (L) (confirmation of plans), (N) (orders approving sales of property of the estate) and (0) (other proceedings involving liquidation of estate assets).

Section 157 treats a proceeding to determine whether a debt belongs to the bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding.

Samson Resources Co. v. Valero Marketing & Supply Co. · filed 2011-05-06(b)(2)

The Court concludes that Samson’s request for declaratory relief is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157, because Samson seeks to determine the parties’ “stakes in the bankrupt’s property.” 813 F.2d at 131.

Section 157(b)(2) treats an objection to a proof of claim as a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy court may enter final judgment.

In Re Cameron · filed 2011-05-17(b)(2)

The pending matter is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) and the Court may enter a final judgment in the matter.

Section 157(b)(2) covers a U.S. Trustee’s motion to dismiss a Chapter 7 case for abuse as a core proceeding.

In Re Fechter · filed 2011-05-19(b)(2)

The UST’s Motion to Dismiss is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(2) treats claims for damages from alleged automatic stay violations as core proceedings.

Stanwyck v. Bogen (In Re Stanwyck) · filed 2011-05-20(b)(2)

This matter is a core proceeding in that (1) Stanwyck’s Complaint seeks damages under § 362(k) for alleged violations of the automatic stay, which is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (G) and (O); and (2) Stan-wyck’s Complaint requires the court to enter an appropriate order to prevent vexatious litigation and an abuse of process.

A potential increase in estate assets from a successful state law claim does not, by itself, make the claim a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(A) or (O).

Bavelis v. Doukas (In Re Bavelis) · filed 2011-05-31(b)(2)(A) and (O)

Moreover, the possibility that the Debtor might prevail on the State Law Counts and thereby generate “a greater amount of assets to distribute to [his] creditors” also is not a sufficient basis to make the Court’s jurisdiction core under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) or (O).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats administration of a bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding.

In Re Salander · filed 2011-06-02(b)(2)(A)

The administration of the Debtors’ estate is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2) classifies proceedings within its listed categories and catch-all provision as core proceedings.

Wise v. Peterson · filed 2011-06-08(b)(2)

This particular dispute is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (B), (I), (O), and the general “catch-all” language of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(2)(O) treats an action concerning liquidation of estate assets as a core proceeding.

Settles v. United States (In Re Settles) · filed 2011-06-10(b)(2)(O)

The Plaintiffs action regarding the liquidation of the estate’s assets is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a Chapter 11 debtor-in-possession’s application to employ counsel as a core bankruptcy matter.

In Re Byington · filed 2011-06-13(b)(2)(A)

An application by a Chapter 11 debtor-in-possession to employ counsel is a “core” bankruptcy matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b) permits a bankruptcy court to hear and determine core matters, including the motion to dismiss and plan confirmation objections addressed here.

In Re Balas · filed 2011-06-13(b)

The Motion to Dismiss and objections to plan confirmation that were filed concurrently herein are core matters under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) & (L) that the court may hear and determine pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

Section 157(b)(2) treats an objection to a claimed homestead exemption as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

In Re Stanley · filed 2011-06-20(b)(2)(A), (B), and (O)

This contested matter is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (B), and (O) and 11 U.S.C. § 522, Rule 4003(b) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”), New York Debtor and Creditor Law § 282 and New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 5206.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) and (O) classify a request to turn over estate property and liquidate estate assets as a core proceeding.

Wadsworth v. Viveros (In Re Viveros) · filed 2011-06-07(b)(2)(E), (O)

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E) and (O) as it concerns a request for turn over of property of the estate and liquidation of the assets of the estate.

Section 157 treats proceedings involving case administration, the automatic stay, and use of cash collateral as core proceedings.

In Re Si Grand Traverse LLC · filed 2011-05-31(b)(2)(A), (G), (M)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (G), & (M), each of these contested matters is a core proceeding, as they involve the administration of the case, the automatic stay, and the use of cash collateral.

Section 157(b)(2) treats proceedings concerning estate administration, obtaining credit, and relief from the automatic stay as core proceedings.

In Re DB Capital Holdings, LLC · filed 2011-05-25(b)(2)(A), (D), and (G)

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (D), and (G), as it concerns the administration of the estate, obtaining credit, and motions to terminate, annul, or modify the automatic stay.

Section 157(b) treats an action for an injunction under Bankruptcy Code § 105 as a core proceeding.

Union Trust Philadelphia, LLC v. Singer Equipment Co. (Union Trust Philadelphia, LLC) · filed 2011-06-30(b)

Moreover, this Court agrees with the analysis of Judge Fox in In re Monroe Well Service, Inc. whereby he found "that an action for an injunction under Section 105 is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).”

Section 157(b)(2)(A) covers a post-confirmation motion to redistribute professional fees under a bankruptcy plan as a core proceeding arising in the bankruptcy case.

In Re Rockaway Bedding, Inc. · filed 2011-06-30(b)(2)(A)

However, this is a core proceeding "arising in” a bankruptcy case because the Plan Trustee seeks redistribution based on the provisions of the Plan. Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction to resolve the dispute.

Section 157 treats a trustee’s motion to approve settlement of an adversary proceeding as a core proceeding.

In Re Scba Liquidation, Inc. · filed 2011-07-05(b)(2)(A)

The Trustee’s Motion to Approve Settlement is a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (0).

Section 157(b)(2)(K) makes the determination of lien priority a core proceeding that the bankruptcy court may decide while applying state law.

In Re Salander O'Reilly Galleries · filed 2011-07-18(b)(2)(K)

The Court holds that it has jurisdiction to determine the priority of interests in the Botticelli, a core matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), (K) and (O). Bankruptcy courts may apply state law as part of the resolution of core proceedings.

Section 157(b) does not make consumer protection claims core proceedings when they invoke no Bankruptcy Code right and could arise outside bankruptcy.

Schatz v. Chase Home Finance (In Re Schatz) · filed 2011-07-25(b)

Applying the test from Halper, Counts II-IV are non-core proceedings. I find these Counts do not fit into one of the categories listed under § 157(b). Neither are Counts II-IV based upon substantive rights provided for under the Bankruptcy Code nor could they arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case. They are claims based upon federal and state consumer protection statutes.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) treats dischargeability determinations as core proceedings in which a bankruptcy judge may enter a final judgment or order.

Racetrac Petroleum, Inc. v. Khan (In Re Khan) · filed 2011-08-02(b)(2)(I)

A determination of the dischargeability of a debt is a core proceeding in which a final judgment or order may be entered by a bankruptcy judge.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a complaint seeking denial of discharge as a core proceeding on which the bankruptcy court may enter final judgment.

General Electric Capital Corp. v. Wickard (In Re Wickard) · filed 2011-08-03(b)(2)

Because GECC’s complaint seeks an order denying a discharge, the adversary proceeding is a “core proceeding” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) — one in which the court may enter final judgment, subject to appellate review under 28 U.S.C. § 158.

Section 157(b)(2)'s listed examples do not make a proceeding core unless it arises under title 11 or arises in a bankruptcy case.

Schmidt v. Bank (In Re Schmidt) · filed 2011-08-03(b)(2)

That is so regardless of whether the matter can be fitted into one of the enumerated examples in § 157(b)(2). ... Since the Replevin Actions do not arise under or arise in the Debtors’ bankruptcy cases, they are, simply, not core.

Section 157(b)(1) treats tort claims arising from a bankruptcy adversary proceeding as core proceedings when they arise in the bankruptcy case.

Nicholas v. Oren (In Re Nicholas) · filed 2011-08-03(b)(1)

Oren’s first, second, and fifth causes of action, in which he alleges that the Adversary Proceeding constituted malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, and coercion, are core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), because each of those causes of action arises in a case under title 11.

Section 157(b)(2) treats an adversary proceeding seeking relief tied to a debtor’s ongoing operations as core with respect to the debtor.

Oxford Expositions, LLC v. Questex Media Group, LLC (In Re Oxford Expositions, LLC) · filed 2011-08-10(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(O)

Insofar as the debtor Oxford Expos is concerned, the complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief against Questex to permit the debtor to operate as a going concern. The Questex counterclaim seeks injunctive and declaratory relief against the debtor, including a claim for damages for its alleged intentional interference with Questex’s prospective business relations. Other substantive counts in the counterclaim, discussed in detail hereinbelow, are filed only against the counterdefendants Meek and Robinson, who have not filed individual bankruptcy cases, but who are integral to the ongoing operations of the debtor. As such, as to the debtor, Oxford Expos, this cause of action is a core proceeding as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (0).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats an objection to asserted interests as a core proceeding that a bankruptcy judge may finally decide when it concerns property within the court’s jurisdiction.

Jordan River Liquidating Trust v. Jay & P, LLC (In Re Jordan River Resources, Inc.) · filed 2011-08-16(b)(2)(B)

This matter is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B). The court may enter final judgment because the controversy involves claims to a res within the court’s jurisdiction (permissibly resolved by a bankruptcy judge) rather than a proceeding to augment the estate (presumptively within the purview of a life-tenured district judge with salary protections under Article III of the U.S. Constitution).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) places a proceeding concerning estate administration within core jurisdiction only if the estate has an interest in the property at issue.

Salem Baptist Church v. Federal Insurance (In Re Salem Baptist Church) · filed 2011-08-25(b)(2)(A)

As a result, this proceeding will be within this Court’s core jurisdiction only if the Debtor’s estate has an interest in the Policy.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats a pre-petition state law action as a core proceeding when a creditor’s proof of claim raises the same issues and resolving the action determines allowance or disallowance of the claim.

Kurz v. EMAK Worldwide, Inc. · filed 2011-09-09(b)(2)(B)

The filing of a proof of claim, however, only transforms a pre-petition state law action into a core proceeding when the proof of claim raises the identical issues as the state action.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) includes enforcement of bankruptcy court orders protecting a creditor’s interest in the debtor’s estate among core proceedings concerning estate administration.

Mitchell v. F/V Janice · filed 2011-09-21(b)(2)(A)

Moreover, under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), core proceedings include “matters concerning the administration of the estate,” a broad category that can easily extend to a bankruptcy court’s actions in enforcing compliance with its orders.

Section 157(b)(1) covers determination of a setoff claim against the bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding because the claim affects distribution of estate property.

Columbia Hospital for Women Medical Center, Inc. v. NCRIC, Inc. (In Re Columbia Hospital for Women Medical Center, Inc.) · filed 2011-09-21(b)(1)

The determination of NCRIC’s right of setoff, a claim against the estate, goes to the distribution of the res, the estate of the debtor, being administered by this court. Accordingly, this is a paradigmatic core proceeding, both in the statutory sense, because it falls within 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), and in the constitutional law sense regarding what core issues in a bankruptcy system may be heard and decided by an Article I bankruptcy judge instead of an Article III judge.

Section 157(b)(2) classifies determinations of dischargeability of particular debts and objections to discharge as core proceedings.

Randall v. Atkins (In Re Atkins) · filed 2011-09-01(b)(2)(I), (J)

This matter is a core proceeding as defined under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I) (determination of discharge of particular debts) and (J) (objections to discharge).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) covers a proceeding concerning administration of the estate when the estate retains a share of the proceeds after the trustee sells the claims.

Szilagyi Ex Rel. Lakewood Engineering & Manufacturing Co. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC (In Re Lakewood Enginee · filed 2011-09-29(b)(2)(A)

The resolution of this particular proceeding concerns the administration of the estate under § 157(b)(2)(A), even though the Trustee sold his claims against CAM to Jarden.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) classifies a determination of debt dischargeability as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Taylor-Kennedy v. Frempong (In Re Frempong) · filed 2011-10-14(b)(2)(I)

The question of dischargeability of a debt is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I).

Section 157(b)(2)(I) treats determinations about whether a debt is dischargeable as core bankruptcy proceedings.

McCurdie v. Strozewski (In Re Strozewski) · filed 2011-10-18(b)(2)(I)

This adversary proceeding is a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I) (determinations regarding dischargeability of a debt).

Section 157(b)(2)(I) classifies determinations of the dischargeability of particular debts as core proceedings.

Jacobs v. Versa Corp. (In Re Jacobs) · filed 2011-10-21(b)(2)(I)

With respect to Versa Corp.’s nondischargeability claim, this is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I).

Section 157(b)(2)(I) classifies dischargeability proceedings as core proceedings in which a bankruptcy judge may enter final judgment under § 157(b)(1).

Town Centre Self Storage, LLC v. Conoryea (In Re Conoryea) · filed 2011-11-03(b)(2)(I)

As such, this is a core proceeding in the Defendant's bankruptcy case, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I), hence within the bankruptcy jurisdiction of the federal courts, 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b), and subject to entry of final judgment at the order of a bankruptcy judge, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

Section 157(b) allows bankruptcy courts to enter final judgments in core proceedings, including proceedings that determine the validity of liens.

Rose v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. · filed 2011-12-06(b)(2)

Core proceedings include allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate and determinations of the validity, extent, or priority of liens, and orders approving the sale of property of the estate to persons who have filed claims against the estate. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), (K), (N). The Adversary Proceeding, which arose under the Bankruptcy Code, meets the definition of a core proceeding.

Section 157(b) treats an equitable-subordination claim under 11 U.S.C. § 510(c) as a non-enumerated core proceeding.

Burtch v. Huston (In Re USDigital, Inc.) · filed 2011-12-20(b)

Thus, Count 15, which asserts a claim for equitable subordination under 11 U.S.C. § 510(c), is a non-enumerated core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157(b)(2) treats this adversary proceeding as a core bankruptcy matter.

TV Tokyo Corp. v. 4Kids Entertainment, Inc. (In re 4Kids Entertainment, Inc.) · filed 2011-12-29(b)(2)

4Kids’ Answer and Counterclaims alleges that this is a core matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). Plaintiffs’ Answer to 4Kids' Counterclaims neither admits nor denies this allegation. In the Court's view, there is no question as to the core nature of this proceeding.

Section 157 treats a post-confirmation dispute over enforcing a bankruptcy sale order and identifying estate property as a core “arising in” proceeding, even when the parties are non-debtors.

Factory Mutual Insurance v. Panda Energy International, Inc. (In re Hereford Biofuels L.P.) · filed 2012-01-03(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(O)

While the Adversary Proceeding has arisen in a post-confirmation context, and is between two non-debtor parties, the disputes herein concern: (a) the interpretation and enforcement of a prior sale order of the bankruptcy court, under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code; and (b) the definition of what was or was not property of the bankruptcy estate in the underlying bankruptcy case, pursuant to section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code. Thus, the court determines that this is a core “arising in” proceeding, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A), (0) & 1334(b).

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

Richardson v. Checker Acquisition Corp. (In re Checker Motors Corp.) · filed 2012-01-12(b)(2)

These adversary proceedings are statutory core proceedings because the plaintiff seeks to determine, avoid or recover fraudulent conveyances or preferences.

Section 157(b)(2)(H) covers § 544(b)(1) avoidance claims as core proceedings even when they rely partly on law outside the Bankruptcy Code.

Zazzali v. Swenson (In Re DBSI, Inc.) · filed 2012-01-13(b)(2)(H)

With respect to the counts based on 11 U.S.C. § 544(b)(1), it is not so obvious that these are core proceedings since, in part, they rely upon “applicable law” other than the Bankruptcy Code. Nevertheless, it clearly falls within the language of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H).

A proceeding to enforce the automatic stay is a core matter in which a bankruptcy judge may enter a final order.

Meoli v. Huntington National Bank (In re Teleservices Group, Inc.) · filed 2012-01-18(b)(2)(A)

This court also has the authority to enter a final order... because the matter relates to the enforcement of the automatic stay.

Section 157 treats confirmation of a bankruptcy plan as a core proceeding.

In Re Wr Grace & Co. · filed 2012-01-30(b)(2)(L)

The Third Circuit has found that "[c]onfirmation of a proposed bankruptcy plan is a core bankruptcy matter" under the United States Code. Anes, 195 F.3d at 180 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(L)). In line with this Third Circuit precedent, the Court finds that appellate analysis of Grace's proposed Joint Plan is a core matter under Title 11.