28 U.S.C. § 157

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats proceedings to reject a lease under § 365(d)(2) as core proceedings concerning administration of the estate.

Tayfur v. Swepi LP · filed 2014-07-07(b)(2)(A)

“Core proceedings” under the Bankruptcy Code include “matters concerning the administration of the estate.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) (2)(A). Proceedings seeking the rejection of a lease pursuant to § 365(d)(2) fall within that category.

Section 157 treats a motion to appoint an additional creditors’ committee as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

In re Budd Co. · filed 2014-07-07(b)(2)(A)

A proceeding on a motion to appoint an additional committee under section 1102 arises in a case under title 11 and is specified as a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157 classifies proceedings concerning claim allowance and plan confirmation as core proceedings that a bankruptcy court may decide.

In re Johnson · filed 2014-07-08(b)(2)(B), (b)(2)(L)

Proceedings concerning the allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate and the confirmation of plans are core proceedings. 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(B), (L). This Court has both the jurisdiction and the constitutional authority to enter a final judgment in this matter.

Section 157(b)(2)(H) treats a fraudulent-transfer avoidance proceeding as a core proceeding that a bankruptcy court may hear and finally adjudicate.

Rajala v. National Ass'n of Postal Supervisors Branch 458 (In re Krouse) · filed 2014-07-11(b)(2)(H)

Furthermore, this Court may hear and finally adjudicate this matter because it is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H).

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy judge to enter a final order on a contested involuntary petition as a proceeding affecting the adjustment of the debtor-creditor relationship.

In re American Resource & Energy, LLC · filed 2014-07-15(b)(2)(O)

As a fundamental "proceeding affecting ... the adjustment of the debtor-creditor relationship,” a contested involuntary petition is subject to the entry of final order at the direction of a bankruptcy judge.

Section 157 treats proceedings concerning dischargeability and objections to discharge as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Doyle v. Howie-Cox (In re Howie-Cox) · filed 2014-06-30(b)(2)(I), (b)(2)(J)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(A) covers a malpractice claim against creditors’ committee counsel when the challenged acts occurred solely in administering the bankruptcy estate.

Schultze v. David Chandler, Sr. · filed 2014-07-18(b)(2)(A)

His duties pertained solely to the administration of the bankruptcy estate. The claim asserted by Plaintiffs was based solely on acts that occurred in the administration of the estate. Therefore, the lawsuit falls easily within the definition of a core proceeding.

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

Brickley v. Scattered Corp. (In re H & M Oil & Gas, LLC) · filed 2014-07-21(b)(2)(B)

Specifically, the Trustee’s objection to the administrative claim filed by Greenblatt (Count 6) is core under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), and his request for equitable subordination of such claim (Count 5) is a matter arising under 11 U.S.C. § 510(c).

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

In re Denman · filed 2014-07-24(b)(2)(G)

By virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G) this is a core proceeding.

Section 157 treats claims and counterclaims arising from the same transactions as a dischargeability action as core proceedings that a bankruptcy court may finally decide.

Wilson v. Walker (In re Walker) · filed 2014-07-25(b)(2)

Because I conclude that all claims and counterclaims in this ease arise out of the same series of transactions, particularly the 2007 and 2008 AMAs, they are both statutorily and constitutionally core.

Section 157(b)(2)’s categories of core proceedings do not cover these claims.

New York Skyline, Inc. v. Empire State Building Co. (In re New York Skyline, Inc.) · filed 2014-08-01(b)(2)

Nor do any of the oth- ' er matters labeled as "core” in section 157(b)(2) apply to these claims.

Section 157(b)(2) treats proceedings concerning estate administration, exemptions, and turnover of estate property as core proceedings.

Cage v. Smith (In re Smith) · filed 2014-08-04(b)(2)

This particular dispute is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) because it affects the administration of this Chapter 7 estate. Further, it is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(B) and (E) because it is a suit to determine the allowance or disallowance of exemptions from property of the estate and the relief sought is an order to turn over property of the estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats proceedings concerning exemptions from estate property as core proceedings.

In re Anderson · filed 2014-08-05(b)(2)(B)

Proceedings concerning exemptions from property of the estate are core proceedings that are integral to the adjustment of the debtor-creditor relationship.

Section 157 treats applications for compensation and expense reimbursement under 11 U.S.C. § 330 as core proceedings concerning estate administration and claims against the estate.

In re Harry Viner, Inc. · filed 2014-08-05(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(B)

Applications for compensation and reimbursement of expenses under 11 U.S.C. § 330 are core proceedings insofar as they concern the administration of the estate and are proceedings for the allowance of claims against the estate.

Section 157 treats a motion to enforce a discharge injunction as a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy court may enter a final order or judgment.

In re Szenes · filed 2014-08-06(b)(2)(O)

Consideration of the Contempt Motion is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0) in which final orders or judgment may be entered by this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

A motion to enforce a bankruptcy sale order is a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(N), and the bankruptcy court may enter a final order.

In re NE Opco, Inc. · filed 2014-08-08(b)(2)(N)

Consideration of the Motion constitutes a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(N). The Court has the judicial power to enter a final order.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) permits a bankruptcy court to determine whether an insider claim is debt or equity when that determination is necessary to allow or disallow the claim.

In re 431 W. Ponce De Leon, LLC · filed 2014-08-11(b)(2)(B)

Even after Stern v. Marshall, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2594, 180 L.Ed.2d 475 (2011), if the determination of the status of a claim is required for allowance or disallowance of that claim, then the bankruptcy court has constitutional authority and jurisdiction to make such a determination.

Section 157(b)(2)(F) and (H) classify proceedings to avoid preferential or fraudulent transfers as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Hofmann v. Drabner (In re Baldwin) · filed 2014-08-11(b)(2)(F), (H)

The Plaintiffs complaint seeks to avoid and recover for the benefit of the estate a preferential or fraudulent transfer, making this a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F) and (H).

Section 157(b)(2) treats a dispute over estate property and its turnover as a core proceeding in which party consent is immaterial to the bankruptcy court’s entry of final judgment.

Okke v. Okke (In re Okke) · filed 2014-07-17(b)(2)(A), (E), (K)

The court finds, however, that the dispute is a “core” proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (E) and (K), rendering consent immaterial.

Section 157(b)(2) covers disputes concerning an involuntary bankruptcy petition as core proceedings.

In re Corrline International, LLC · filed 2014-08-21(b)(2)

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

Section 157's core and non-core classifications apply only after the court determines that bankruptcy subject-matter jurisdiction exists under § 1334.

TMT Procurement Corp. v. Vantage Drilling Co. (In Re TMT Procurement Corp.) · filed 2014-09-03

This argument muddies the water somewhat because before a court can decide whether an action is a core or a non-core proceeding, it must first determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction under § 1334 even exists.

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

Mackall v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. · filed 2014-09-11(b)(2)(B)

To the extent that plaintiffs argue that the bankruptcy court's ruling was not preclusive because it was not a core proceeding, they are incorrect. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) (2012) (providing that "[clore proceedings include ... allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate"); Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 303 n. 2, 126 S.Ct 1735, 164 LEd.2d 480 (2006).

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear and determine a referred core proceeding, including one to enforce and interpret a confirmed plan.

In re J & B Haldeman Holdings, LLC · filed 2014-09-23(b)(1)

The substance of the issue is the enforcement and interpretation of a confirmed plan and is clearly a core proceeding.

Section 157 treats dischargeability as a core proceeding; intertwined liability and damages issues may be considered with it as a substantially core matter.

Trinity Christian Center of Santa Ana, Inc. v. Koper (In re Koper) · filed 2014-09-30(b)(2)(I)

As admitted by the Plaintiff in the Complaint, dis-chargeability of debt is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I). ... Therefore, the issues of liability, amount of damages, and dischargeability should essentially be considered as one proceeding that is “substantially core” to the bankruptcy process.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) treats these orders arising in a title 11 case as core proceedings subject to traditional appellate review.

Supplement B Pilot Beneficiaries v. AMR Corp. (In re AMR Corp.) · filed 2014-10-17(b)(2)(A) and (O)

Because the orders under review in this appeal arose in a title 11 case, rather than an adversary proceeding, they are core proceedings subject to traditional appellate review.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats contempt proceedings that ensure administration of the bankruptcy estate as core proceedings.

Souther v. Tate (In re Tate) · filed 2014-10-17(b)(2)(A)

Section 157(b)(2) provides a non-exclusive list of examples of core proceedings. The contempt proceedings here are core under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) — “matters concerning the administration of the estate.”

Section 157(b)(2) treats a motion to enforce a bankruptcy court’s sale order under section 363 as a core proceeding.

In re Motors Liquidation Co. · filed 2014-11-10(b)(2)

New GM’s Motion to Enforce— seeking enforcement of a sale order entered in connection with a section 363 sale — is indeed a “core matter” by statute, under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A), (N), and (O).

Section 157(b)(2)(H) classifies fraudulent transfer recovery as a core proceeding that a bankruptcy court has statutory authority to resolve.

Meoli v. Cooper (In re Allen) · filed 2014-11-13(b)(2)(H)

As a matter of statute, the court has the authority to resolve the adversary proceeding as a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H) (fraudulent transfer recovery).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats an objection to a proof of claim as a core proceeding even when the objection rests on state law.

Bavelis v. Doukas (In Re Bavelis) · filed 2014-11-26(b)(2)(B)

In contrast, Count Three was construed as an objection to Quick Capital’s proof of claim and, therefore, involves the “allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate.” See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B). Count Three, in other words, is in the nature of an affirmative defense to Doukas’s proof of claim, not an independent cause of action. The bankruptcy court thus did not err in deeming Count Three a core proceeding while finding the remaining state-law claims to be noncore.

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear and determine a claim that the discharge injunction was violated as a core proceeding, even when recoupment implicates state law.

Meyer v. Kansas Department of Labor (In re Meyer) · filed 2014-12-03(b)(1)

Since a violation of the discharge injunction arises only in a bankruptcy case, it is core, and this Court has both statutory and Constitutional jurisdiction over it, even though recoupment may implicate state law.

State law claims that do not concern administration of the bankruptcy estate are not core proceedings under § 157(b)(2)(A).

Lewiston v. APTCAM, LLC (In re Lewiston) · filed 2014-12-10(b)(2)(A)

Etter-beek’s claims do not concern the administration of this estate and are not core under § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2) treats disputes over estate property and the allowance of claims as core proceedings even when resolving them requires deciding state-law issues.

In re Strathmore Group, LLC · filed 2014-12-31(b)(2)

This Court has core jurisdiction to consider the state law issues in the Surrogate’s Court proceedings, because their resolution will form the basis of this Court’s determination, under bankruptcy law, whether the Building is property of a bankruptcy estate and whether Liosis has an allowed proof of claim against Strath-more, Nikolaos, or both.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats adjudication of a tax claim against the debtor as a core proceeding when the Bankruptcy Code creates the debtor’s right to that adjudication.

Sarfani, Inc. v. Mississippi Department of Revenue (In re Sarfani, Inc.) · filed 2015-01-27(b)(2)(B)

Accordingly, the adjudication of MDOR’s claim against the Debtor is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) and the Fifth Circuit’s holding in Fire Eagle, 710 F.3d 299.

Section 157(b)(2) does not treat breach of fiduciary duty claims as core proceedings when they neither invoke a right under title 11 nor arise only in bankruptcy.

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Allied Systems Holding, Inc. v. Yucaipa American Alliance Fund I, LP (In re · filed 2015-01-28(b)(2)

First, claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty do not appear on the list of core proceedings in section 157(b). Second, these claims are not core because they do not invoke a substantive right provided by title 11, nor do the claims arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case.

Section 157 classifies referred bankruptcy proceedings as core or non-core; that classification does not affect subject matter jurisdiction.

Hosking v. TPG Capital Management, L.P. (In re Hellas Telecommunications (Luxembourg) II SCA · filed 2015-01-29

Section 157 also divides matters referred to the bankruptcy court into two categories: core and non-core proceedings. ... the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction remains unaffected, and the court may submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Section 157 treats this state-law foreclosure dispute as a noncore proceeding related to the bankruptcy case.

George West 59 Investment, Inc. v. Williams (In re George West 59 Investment, Inc.) · filed 2015-02-11

Count 1 of the Adversary Proceeding (which is the subject of the pending Motions for Summary Judgment) implicates noncore, “related to” matters. Specifically, the issues in Count 1 involve state law (foreclosure law).

Section 157 treats an ownership dispute as a core proceeding when resolving it is necessary to administer the debtor’s estate and determine how creditors’ claims will be handled.

JWL Entertainment Group, Inc. v. Solby+Westbrae Partners, 19 SHC, Corp. · filed 2015-02-20(b)(2)

As the Zeltser Group conceded before the district court, the ownership issue is a core matter that clearly “arises under” or “arises in a case under” chapter 11. Resolution of the threshold ownership issue was critical to the administration of the Alleged Debtors’ estates and directly affected the debtor-creditor relationship.

Section 157(b)(2) treats determining what property belongs to the bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding, even when the determination involves state law.

In re Trust · filed 2015-03-04(b)(2)

First, determining what assets constitute property of the Debtor’s estate arises under the Bankruptcy Code, specifically 11 U.S.C. § 541, and is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). The fact that this determination may revolve around state law does not affect this Court’s authority.

Section 157 does not treat an indemnity action against a non-debtor as a core proceeding when it involves no right created by the Bankruptcy Code and could exist outside bankruptcy.

Hanover Insurance v. Cape Fear Paving, LLC · filed 2015-05-07(b)(1)

Because this indemnity action against a non-debtor indemnitor does not involve a right created by the Bankruptcy Code and could exist outside of a bankruptcy case, the Court finds that it is not a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2) treats claims against bankruptcy court-appointed professionals arising from post-petition conduct that bears directly on estate administration as core proceedings.

Shubert v. Law Offices of Winterhalter · filed 2015-05-12(b)(2)

Similarly, Plaintiff here alleges that Defendants breached their duties as bankruptcy court-appointed professionals and aided and abetted Mr. Grasso in breaching his duties as debtor-in-possession; these claims arise from post-petition conduct that bears directly on the administration of the bankruptcy estate. Thus, this case is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a trustee’s motion to approve a settlement as a core proceeding when it concerns estate administration, claim allowance, sale of property, and liquidation of estate assets.

Rindlesbach v. Jones · filed 2015-05-28(b)(2)

The Trustee’s motion for an order approving the settlement was a core proceeding as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2), because it addressed matters concerning the administration of the estate, the allowance of claims, the approval of a sale of property, and affected the liquidation of assets of the estate.

Section 157(b)(1) does not treat an FDCPA action as a core proceeding when it neither arises under Title 11 nor arises in a bankruptcy case.

Avalos v. LVNV Funding, LLC (In re Avalos) · filed 2015-06-12(b)(1)

This proceeding is not “core” under the Judicial Code because it neither “arises under” nor “arises in” a bankruptcy case. “Bankruptcy Judges may hear and determine ... all core proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in a case under title 11.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

Section 157 treats a debt-dischargeability action as a core proceeding, but it ceases to be core when denial of the debtor’s discharge leaves only state law claims.

Ammini v. Labgold (In re Labgold) · filed 2015-06-16(b)(2)(I)

Although this action was a core proceeding involving the discharge-ability of debts under Section 523 when it was filed (See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(D), it involves only State law claims at this point and is no longer a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2) treats proceedings to determine the debtor’s or estate’s rights in disputed property as core proceedings, even when state law governs those rights.

Marah Wood Productions, LLC v. Jones · filed 2015-07-22(b)(2)

As previously noted, proceedings in which the estate or the debtor seek to adjudicate their property rights in certain property constitute core proceedings, even if the adjudication of those rights is governed solely by state law. Consequently, section 1334’s “mandatory abstention” provision is inapplicable to the interpleader action, which seeks to determine the property rights of several parties, including the debtor (Jones) and the Jones Bankruptcy Estate (the Trustee).

Section 157 treats a motion to convert a bankruptcy case to liquidation as a core proceeding, which weighs heavily against withdrawing its referral from the bankruptcy court.

Wolf v. FirstMerit Bank, N.A. · filed 2015-07-31

The motion to convert the Wolfs’ bankruptcy cases to liquidation is a “core” bankruptcy proceeding, see 28 U.S.C. § 157; In re U.S. Brass Corp., 110 F.3d 1261, 1268 (7th Cir.1997) (“Core proceedings are actions by or against the debtor that arise under the Bankruptcy Code in the strong sense that the Code itself is the source of the claimant’s right or remedy, rather than just the procedural vehicle for the assertion of a right conferred by some other body of law, normally state law.”), which is one of the most important factors to determining whether withdrawal is appropriate, see LHC, LLC v. Club Sporting Consulting Grp., Inc., Nos. 14 C 9703, 14 C 10105, 2015 WL 4158703, at *1 (N.D.Ill. July 8, 2015).

Section 157(b) does not make state-law claims core merely because their resolution may have preclusive effect in a separate dischargeability action.

Gainsborough v. Lutfak (In re Lutfak) · filed 2015-08-27(b)

The potential preclusive effect of an adversary proceeding remanded to state court on a subsequent § 523 action does not necessarily transform a non-core proceeding into one that is core.

Section 157(b)(2)(H) classifies a genuine fraudulent conveyance claim as a core proceeding.

Harrelson v. Spray (In re Harrelson) · filed 2015-09-02(b)(2)(H)

Unlike the turnover claim, nothing in the allegations suggests that the fraudulent conveyance claim is anything other than what it purports to be. It is therefore a “core” proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H).

Section 157(b)(2) does not treat state-law claims that can stand alone from a bankruptcy case as core proceedings.

Firefighters' Retirement System v. Consulting Group Services, LLC · filed 2015-09-14(b)(2)

Because the claims asserted by the plaintiffs in their Petition can clearly stand alone from the bankruptcy case, they are not core proceedings.

A declaratory judgment claim involving setoff issues is a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(O).

Gladys Ragsdale Trust v. Tostige (In re Tostige) · filed 2015-09-15(b)(2)(O)

In addition, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction to decide Plaintiffs claim seeking the declaratory judgment, and that claim is a core proceeding, because the setoff-related issues that the Court decides today make this a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (B) treats a proceeding to determine entitlement to a priority claim as a core proceeding that a bankruptcy judge may decide.

In re Meier · filed 2015-09-17(b)(2)(A) and (B)

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A) and (B). It seeks to determine whether a creditor is entitled to a priority claim. Therefore, it “stems from the bankruptcy itself,” and may constitutionally be decided by a bankruptcy judge.

Section 157 permits bankruptcy courts to enter judgments in core proceedings involving automatic-stay claims even when resolving them requires deciding state-law issues.

Cowen v. WD Equipment, LLC (In re Cowen) · filed 2015-09-30(b)

In this case, the claim for violation of the automatic stay of § 362 was a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157 to enter orders and judgments.

Section 157(b)(1) does not treat a state law partition action as a core proceeding when the action could exist outside bankruptcy.

Reedquist v. McKay · filed 2015-09-30(b)(1)

The Court finds that Reedquist’s partition action is not a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) treats a motion to dismiss a bankruptcy case as a core proceeding when it concerns estate administration and affects the relationship between the debtor and creditors.

In re Wilcox · filed 2015-10-15(b)(2)(A) and (O)

The pending dispute before this . Court is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) because whether or not to dismiss this case concerns the administration of this estate and also affects the adjustment of the relationship between the Debtor and his creditors.

Section 157 does not classify ordinary contract claims as core proceedings merely because the alleged agreements were formed during a bankruptcy case.

Ferrone v. Reed (In re Rock Airport of Pittsburgh, LLC) · filed 2015-10-27(b)(2)

Relevant to this determination is Defendants’ contention that the State Court Action constitutes a core proceeding “arising in” the bankruptcy case. This Court disagrees. ... Although two of the three agreements referenced in the Complaint (the Settlement Agreement and the alleged oral agreement with a separate entity) were asserted to have been formed during the pendency of the bankruptcy case, an alleged breach of said agreements does not invoke substantive provisions of the Bankruptcy Code nor are these the types of claims that can only be entertained in bankruptcy.

Section 157(b) treats a request to fix and liquidate liability on an allegedly nondischargeable debt as a core proceeding that a bankruptcy judge may finally decide.

Loos v. Koperski (In re Koperski) · filed 2015-11-05(b)

Under current circuit precedent, a request to fix and liquidate the liability on a debt asserted to be nondischargeable is a core proceeding, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b), within the bankruptcy jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). Such a request may be heard in tandem with the matter of discharge-ability and it is subject to final disposition at the order of a bankruptcy judge.

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

Goldstein v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB (In re Universal Marketing, Inc.) · filed 2015-11-24(b)(2)(H)

The remaining two (2) claims subject to dismissal (Counts Six and Seven) are fraudulent transfer claims. Congress has classified such claims as core proceedings.

Section 157(b)(2) treats an adversary proceeding concerning a mechanic’s lien on debtors’ real property as a core bankruptcy matter.

Wolfe v. Rodriguez · filed 2015-12-02(b)(2)(A), (K)

The bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to hear the claims raised in the debtors’ adversary proceeding, as those claims related to a mechanic’s lien encumbering the debtors’ real property, a core matter in the bankruptcy proceeding.

A debtor’s lawsuit that functions as a counterclaim to a creditor’s proof of claim is a core proceeding.

Castle Cheese, Inc. v. FirstMerit Bank, N.A. (In re Castle Cheese, Inc.) · filed 2015-12-02(b)(2)

This Court finds that the substance of the Lawsuit is the functional equivalent to a counterclaim to FirstMerit’s proof of claim, and therefore is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats claims allowance and disallowance as core proceedings.

Ames Department Stores, Inc. v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. (In re Ames Department Stores, Inc.) · filed 2015-12-07(b)(2)(B)

Claims allowance and disallowance is also a core proceeding, since, as noted above, it is expressly listed as such under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

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

In re Everton Aloysius Sterling · filed 2015-12-22(b)(2)(G)

The Court rejects this argument, as core proceedings specifically include "motions to terminate, annul, or modify the automatic stay.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G).

Section 157 classifies proceedings arising under the Bankruptcy Code or arising in a bankruptcy case as core, and proceedings merely related to a bankruptcy case as noncore.

Turner Grain Merchandising, Inc. v. LTD Farms Partnership (In re Turner Grain Merchandising, Inc.) · filed 2016-01-19(b)-(c)

The Court accordingly finds that it has “related to” jurisdiction over the State Court Action, and the State Court Action is a therefore a non-core proceeding.

Section 157 treats proceedings concerning professional fee awards as arising in the bankruptcy case.

In re Sanders · filed 2016-01-21(b)

Civil proceedings regarding fee awards are considered to “arise in” the underlying bankruptcy.

Section 157(b)(2) covers a restitution proceeding arising from a reversed nondischargeability judgment as a core proceeding concerning dischargeability and the debtor-creditor relationship.

United Healthcare Workerswest v. Borsos (In re Borsos) · filed 2016-01-22(b)(2)

A more precise explanation of this court’s authority is that the dispute is within core bankruptcy jurisdiction because the underlying dispute involves the effect of the bankruptcy discharge on the money judgment. It is a proceeding that relates to the dischargeability of a particular debt. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I). And it is a proceeding affecting the adjustment of the debtor-creditor relationship. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0).

An adversary proceeding seeking to avoid a mortgage on a debtor’s property is a core proceeding in which a bankruptcy judge may enter final judgment without all parties’ consent.

Velardi v. Countrywide Bank (In re Velardi) · filed 2016-02-24(b)(2)(E)

However, in this case, I conclude that the subject Adversary Proceeding is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E). Therefore, I have the authority to enter a final judgment without the consent of all the parties.

Section 157(b)(2) does not classify an adversary proceeding as core merely because some of its claims relate to the bankruptcy case.

Acevedo v. Bayron (In re Acevedo) · filed 2016-03-15(b)(2)

As a preliminary matter, this adversary proceeding is not a core proceeding and is only related to the bankruptcy case in certain respects.

Section 157(b)(2)(J) classifies objections to discharge as core proceedings.

Jackson v. Jackson (In re Jackson) · filed 2016-04-11(b)(2)(J)

Moreover, objections to discharge are statutorily core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(J).

Section 157(b)(2)(J) treats a proceeding to revoke a bankruptcy discharge as a core proceeding.

Steege v. Johnsson (In re Johnsson) · filed 2016-06-02(b)(2)(J)

A proceeding to revoke the discharge, much like an objection to discharge, may only arise in a case under title 11 and is specified as a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) treats proceedings to determine dischargeability of debts as core proceedings.

Farahani v. Bastanipour (In re Bastanipour) · filed 2016-06-07(b)(2)(I)

It is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I). Since a proceeding to determine dischargeability “stems from the bankruptcy itself,” ... this court has both the statutory and the constitutional authority to enter final judgment on the complaint.

Section 157 treats a proceeding to enforce a bankruptcy discharge injunction as a core proceeding.

Credit One Financial v. Anderson (In re Anderson) · filed 2016-06-14(b)

Thus, a proceeding concerning a violation of a discharge injunction is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b) treats claims that depend on applying the automatic stay as core proceedings for final determination by the bankruptcy court.

Walker v. Got'cha Towing & Recovery, LLC (In re Walker) · filed 2016-06-17(b)

However, the state law claims, as asserted, stand or fall based on the application of the automatic stay, and are accordingly core proceedings referred to this Court for final determination under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157 treats an FDCPA claim that can be brought without a bankruptcy filing as a non-core proceeding.

Robinson v. JH Portfolio Debt Equities, LLC (In re Robinson) · filed 2016-07-28(b)(2)

The FDCPA claim does not arise under the Bankruptcy Code or a case under the Bankruptcy Code. Rather, this causes of action arise under the FDCPA. Similarly, this adversary proceeding is not a proceeding that can arise solely in the context of a bankruptcy case, because the causes of action may be pursued without the prerequisite of a bankruptcy filing. As such, the FDCPA cause of action is not a core proceeding.

Section 157(b) allows a bankruptcy court to finally determine a core claim objection without the parties’ consent.

Menorah Congregation & Religious Center v. Feldman (In re Menorah Congregation & Religious Center) · filed 2016-08-05(b)

Although consent is unnecessary given the fundamentally core nature of this claim objection issue, the parties have expressly consented to the Court’s final determination of the dispute.

Section 157(b)(2) treats enforcement and implementation of a bankruptcy court’s sale order as a core proceeding that the court may hear and determine.

In re Personal Communications Devices, LLC · filed 2016-08-05(b)(2)

Moreover, the enforcement and implementation of the Sale Order is a “core” bankruptcy proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2), and is thus a discrete matter which Congress has determined this Court should hear and determine.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) does not make independent state-law claims core proceedings merely because they may benefit the bankruptcy estate.

Everett v. Art Brand Studios, LLC · filed 2016-08-15(b)(2)(A)

Because the fourth and fifth causes of action do not “only arise[ ] in title 11 cases” and are not “created by title 11,” the claims are non-core.

A demand for money from the bankruptcy estate alone does not make a proceeding core under § 157(b).

Secure Leverage Group, Inc. v. Bodenstein · filed 2016-08-15(b)

But simply because a plaintiff demands money from the estate does not mean the proceeding is a core proceeding and is within the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(b) does not make a proceeding core based on a claim that may be asserted in the future.

Atencio v. Atencio (In re Petroleum Products & Services, Inc.) · filed 2016-08-15(b)

A potential claim that may be asserted in the future cannot transform a non-core matter into a core one.

Section 157(b)(2) treats civil contempt proceedings enforcing orders about estate administration and turnover of estate property as core proceedings in which a bankruptcy court may enter a final order.

Gowdy v. Mitchell (In Re Ocean Warrior, Inc.) · filed 2016-08-26(b)(2)

The court’s orders concerned “the administration of the estate” and “turn[ing] over property of the estate.” Therefore, the matters were “core proceedings” under the text of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats a decision to grant or deny a notice of post-petition fees, expenses, and charges as a core matter.

In re Raygoza · filed 2016-09-01(b)(2)(B)

The decision to grant or deny a Notice of Post-Petition Fees, Expenses and Charges pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3002.1 falls squarely within the statutory definition of a core matter. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2) treats a substantive consolidation claim as a core proceeding because it arises in the bankruptcy case.

Yaquinto v. Ward (In re Ward) · filed 2016-09-07(b)(2)

Because substantive consolidation is a “claim” unique to bankruptcy cases, it “arises in” the Bankruptcy Case itself and is a “core” proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear and determine a request to condition or modify chapter 15 relief as a core proceeding arising under title 11.

In re Ace Track Co. · filed 2016-09-13(b)(1)

Further, a question of conditions on chapter 15 relief under section 1522(b) or modification of relief granted under section 1522(c) is clearly a creature of the statute itself, the Bankruptcy Code, and thus is a core proceeding arising under title 11.

Section 157 treats a dischargeability proceeding as core, and a related counterclaim arising from the same transactions does not make it non-core.

Capuccio v. Capuccio (In re Capuccio) · filed 2016-09-16(b)(2)(I)

This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I). ... Therefore, the mere filing of the Counterclaim does not convert the dischargeability action into a non-core or a “Stem v. Marshall” proceeding.

A motion for a stay pending appeal is a core proceeding that a bankruptcy judge may finally determine.

International Christian Broadcasting, Inc. v. Koper (In re Koper) · filed 2016-10-05(b)(2)(A)

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A). A bankruptcy judge may hear and finally determine any core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) covers a dispute over enforcing a contractual subordination agreement as a core proceeding concerning administration of the estate.

344 Individuals v. Giddens · filed 2016-10-06(b)(2)(A)

Additionally, the bankruptcy court correctly concluded that the dispute involv-. ing the enforcement of a contractual subordination agreement is core, especially where the parties dispute whether the subordination provision may only be applied by the former entity, Shearson, and not LBI, and whether they are the same entity.

Section 157(b)(2)(F) makes proceedings to avoid and recover preferential transfers core proceedings in which bankruptcy judges may enter final orders.

Moyer v. Rosich (In re Rosich) · filed 2016-10-14(b)(2)(F)

Proceedings to avoid and recover preferential transfers under 11 U.S.C. § 547 (such as the current adversary proceeding) are “core proceedings” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F) with respect to which Congress has authorized bankruptcy judges to enter final orders.

Section 157 permits bankruptcy judges to hear core proceedings, including matters adjusting the debtor-creditor relationship.

Montalvo v. Vela (In re Montalvo) · filed 2016-10-14(b)(2)

As such, this is a core matter, in the sense that § 157 provides that matters adjusting “the debtor-creditor ... relationship” because both Vela and TCPSP have also filed proofs of' claim against Montalvo in the underlying bankruptcy and the outcome of this matter would affect those claims.

Section 157 treats a proceeding as core if it invokes a substantive bankruptcy right or could arise only in a bankruptcy case; a state contract claim does not become core merely because it affects the bankruptcy estate.

Petroleum Products & Services, Inc. v. McClinton Energy Group, LLC (In re Petroleum Products & Services, Inc.) · filed 2016-10-25(b)(1)

A proceeding is core under 28 U.S.C. § 157 “if it invokes a substantive right provided by title 11 or if it is a proceeding that, by its nature, could arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case.” ... Because these claims do not invoke a substantive right provided by Title 11 nor are they of a nature that could only arise in a bankruptcy case, Petroleum Products’ state law claims are non-core even though they may affect the bankruptcy estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) and (G) classify claims allowance and relief from the automatic stay as core proceedings.

In re No Place Like Home, Inc. · filed 2016-10-27(b)(2)(B) and (G)

This Chapter 11 case technically in-volves a statutorily denominated core pro-ceeding because it seeks relief from the automatic stay and also involves the “al-lowance and disallowance of claims against” the § 541(a) estate, specifically the Claimants’ overtime and wage claims for an additional third year. 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(B) and (G) (2012).

Section 157’s enumerated core proceedings do not include claims unrelated to the bankruptcy case.

Prosser v. Nissman · filed 2016-11-09(b)(2)

Prosser’s claims do not fall within any of the core proceedings enumerated in Section 157. In addition, none of Prosser’s claims relate to the bankruptcy proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) does not make a claim a core proceeding merely because its resolution may affect the bankruptcy estate.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection v. Occidental Chemical Corp. (In re Maxus Energy Corp.) · filed 2016-11-15(b)(2)(A)

Although the Claims’ resolution may ultimately impact economic and financial aspects of the Debtors’ estate, that fact is insufficient to find that the Claims are core and unable to be severed from any other claims deemed to be core.

An adversary proceeding over the interpretation of a confirmed chapter 11 plan can be a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(A).

Chatz v. Continental Casualty Co. (In re CFB Liquidating Corp.) · filed 2016-11-21(b)(2)(A)

On the contrary, this adversary proceeding is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157 treats claims invoking substantive rights established by the Bankruptcy Code as core proceedings even when they are not enumerated.

Anderson v. Saxton (In re Anderson) · filed 2016-11-22(b)(2)

While claims under 11 U.S.C. §§ 526-528 are not enumerated core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157, they invoke substantive rights established by the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment in a core proceeding involving its interpretation of a settlement agreement it approved.

Galaz v. Katona (In Re Galaz) · filed 2016-10-28(b)(1)

This action presents a core proceeding over which a bankruptcy court may enter final judgment.

A dispute affecting the debtor-creditor relationship can be a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(O).

Gulamali v. Dinh (In re Dinh) · filed 2016-12-13(b)(2)(O)

The dispute at bar is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0) because it affects the debtor-creditor relationship.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment on a core proceeding, including a claim for willful violation of the automatic stay.

Sciortino v. Gwinnett County Department of Water Resources (In re Sciortino) · filed 2016-12-19(b)(1)

The automatic stay is a substantive right created by the Bankruptcy Code and a determination whether the stay was willfully violated ... constitutes a core proceeding in which this Court has the authority to enter a final judgment.

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

Cervac v. Littman (In re Littman) · filed 2016-12-21(b)(2)(I)

A proceeding for determination of the dischargeability of a particular debt arises only as a result of a case under the Bankruptcy Code and is statutorily specified as a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(1) authorizes bankruptcy judges to adjudicate core proceedings.

Ashland Inc. v. G-I Holdings Inc. (In re G-I Holdings, Inc.) · filed 2016-12-21(b)(1)

Accordingly, bankruptcy judges maintain the power to adjudicate all core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

Section 157(b)(2)(F) treats actions to avoid and recover preferential transfers as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Pantazelos v. Benjamin (In re Pantazelos) · filed 2016-12-27(b)(2)(F)

This matter under Count 1 of the adversary proceeding involves a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F), being an action to avoid and recover alleged preferential transfers.

Determining the validity and amount of a disputed proof of claim is a core proceeding.

Hyundai-Wia Machine America Corp. v. Rouette (In re Rouette) · filed 2017-01-17(b)(2)(B)

Determining the validity and amount of such disputed claims is an essential part of the claims allowance process, and is thus a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a venue transfer dispute as a core proceeding when it affects administration of the debtor’s bankruptcy estate.

Walker v. Directory Distribution Associates, Inc. (In re Directory Distributing Associates, Inc.) · filed 2017-02-06(b)(2)(A)

The pending dispute, i.e., whether this Court should transfer venue of the Texas Proceeding to the California Court or the Missouri Court, is a core proceeding pursuant to. § 157(b)(2)(A) because it affects the administration of the Debtor’s Chapter 11 estate.

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

Kennedy v. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (In re Radnor Holdings Corp.) · filed 2017-02-09(b)(2)(A)

The Court agrees with the Bankruptcy Court’s prior determination that the Complaint unequivocally addresses matters in the bankruptcy case, which include matters concerning the administration of the estate.

Section 157 does not treat garden variety breach of contract claims as core proceedings.

Trustees of Conneaut Lake Park, Inc. v. Park Restoration, LLC (In re Trustees of Conneaut Lake Park Inc.) · filed 2017-02-21(b)(2)

The plaintiff asserts that this Adversary Proceeding is a "core proceeding” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0). However, garden variety breach of contract claims are not core proceedings.

A proceeding cannot be classified as non-core solely because state law may affect its resolution.

WD Equipment, LLC v. Cowen · filed 2017-02-27(b)(3)

Defendants’ attempts to distinguish Johnson are unavailing. They argue that, unlike in Johnson, this § 362(k)(1) adversary proceeding is “non-core” because the bankruptcy court “had to determine the disputed possessory interests in [the] assets pursuant to state law.” (Appellant’s Br. at 36). But “[a] determination that a proceeding is not a core proceeding shall not be made solely on the basis that its resolution may be affected by State law.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) covers a dispute over a trustee’s proposed distribution as a core proceeding when the dispute affects administration of the estate.

In re Bird · filed 2017-03-03(b)(2)(A)

The particular issue at bar constitutes a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) because it affects the administration of the estate: If the Court grants the Distribution Motion, then the Debtor’s creditors will receive payments on their respective claims, but if the Court denies this motion, one of the creditors— i.e., RES — will receive nothing.

Section 157(b) authorizes bankruptcy courts to hear disputes over the extent and priority of liens on estate property as core proceedings.

TSA Stores, Inc. v. M J Soffe, LLC (In re TSAWD Holdings Inc.) · filed 2017-03-06(b)

A plain reading of section 157(b) therefore provides the statutory authority for the Court to hear the instant adversary proceeding as a core proceeding because the parties seek a determination of the extent and priority of WSFS’s lien on the Debtors’ inventory.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) classifies proceedings to determine the dischargeability of a debt as core proceedings, giving bankruptcy courts congressional authority to enter final judgment.

Schubert v. Arredondo (In re Arredondo) · filed 2017-03-07(b)(2)(I)

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I). Because this is a core proceeding, the Court has congressional authority to render a final judgment.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy judge to hear and determine a core proceeding enforcing the automatic stay.

Sundquist v. Bank of America, N.A. (In re Sundquist) · filed 2017-03-23(b)(1)

Enforcement of the automatic stay arises under Bankruptcy Code § 362 and is a core proceeding that may be heard and determined by a bankruptcy judge. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1)(G).

Section 157 treats a proceeding to determine whether funds are property of the bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding.

JCF AFFM Debt Holdings. L.P. v. Affirmative Insurance Holdings, Inc. (In re Affirmative Insurance Holdings, Inc.) · filed 2017-03-29(b)(2)

Further, the Court finds that the determination of whether the funds held in the DACA 2 Account are indeed property of bankruptcy estate is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats a challenge resolved through the claims allowance process as a core proceeding.

Kiskaden v. LVNV Funding, LLC (In re Kiskaden) · filed 2017-04-10(b)(2)(B)

The Count 1 claim therefore would “necessarily be resolved in the claims allowance process” and is squarely within this Court’s core jurisdiction.

Section 157 classifies allowance and disallowance of claims against the estate, and counterclaims to those claims, as core proceedings.

Kraz, LLC v. Branch Banking & Trust Co. (In re Kraz, LLC) · filed 2017-04-18(b)(2)(B)-(C)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 157, core proceedings include allowance and disal-lowance of claims against the estate and counterclaims to claims against the estate.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a motion to approve a bankruptcy estate settlement and sale as a core proceeding that the bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

In re Junk · filed 2017-04-19(b)(2)

But this is a core proceeding, see 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (N) and (0), and there is no doubt that the Court has the subject matter jurisdiction to hear and determine the Motion under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 and the general order of reference entered in this district.

Section 157(b)(2)(O) covers proceedings affecting estate liquidation or the debtor-creditor relationship; an action seeking only injunctive relief did not qualify on the showing made here.

Texas, Office of the Attorney General v. Briseno (In re Briseno) · filed 2017-04-19(b)(2)(O)

The second basis, § 157(b)(2)(0), involves “other proceedings affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate or the adjustment of the debtor-creditor or the equity security holder relationship, except personal injury tort or wrongful death claims,” for which, similar to the prior basis, a bankruptcy court may adjudicate. §§ 157(b)(1), (b)(2)(0) (emphasis added). Briseno, however, does not argue how Plaintiffs civil action is going to adjust the debtor-creditor relationship. Even if Briseno had, the Court is hard pressed to see how injunctive relief, the only permissible outcome of Plaintiffs action during the pendency of Defendants’ respective bankruptcies, would adjust the relationship between the Defendants and the consumers, who are arguably now creditors.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a dispute over assignment of a debtor’s membership interest, closely tied to estate assets and sale procedures, as a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy court may enter final judgment.

Bernal v. DK8 LLC (In re HBT JV, LLC ) · filed 2017-04-19(b)(2)

For these reasons and under the unique and peculiar factual and procedural circumstances of this ease, the trial of the Specific Performance Counts constitutes a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A), (B), (E) and (0) in which this Court has statutory and Constitutional authority to enter a final order or judgment.

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

Okoro v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2017-04-20(b)

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

Section 157(b)(2) permits a bankruptcy judge to treat a substantive consolidation proceeding as core and enter a final order.

SE Property Holdings, LLC v. Stewart (In re Stewart) · filed 2017-05-03(b)(2)(A), (O)

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (0).

Claims for violations of the automatic stay and discharge injunction are core proceedings under § 157(b)(2).

In re Jorge · filed 2017-05-26(b)(2)

There is no dispute that the claims for violations of the automatic stay and the discharge injunction contained in the Motion for Contempt constitute core proceedings as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(2) treats a proceeding concerning a creditor’s violation of the discharge injunction as core, allowing the bankruptcy court to adjudicate it finally.

Gray v. Nussbeck (In re Gray) · filed 2017-06-07(b)(2)

Furthermore, this Court may hear and finally adjudicate this matter because it is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(2) does not classify a dispute over a partnership debtor’s partners’ income tax liabilities as a core proceeding when the IRS has no corresponding income tax claim against the debtor’s estate.

Capitol BC Restaurants, LLC v. Commissioner (In re Capitol BC Restaurants, LLC) · filed 2017-06-12(b)(2)

The Court also concludes that the Complaint does not involve a core proceeding— the IRS is not a creditor of the Debtor partnership with respect to “claims” set forth in the FPAA Notices which the Debtor seeks to readjust and does not have an income tax claim against the Debt- or’s estate, just claims for FUTA and FICA taxes which the parties do not dispute are owed solely by the Debtor, not its “partners.”

Section 157(b)(2) treats enforcement of a confirmation order concerning a debtor’s plan as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

In re Shank · filed 2017-06-30(b)(2)

Rather, this is squarely a core matter involving enforcement of the Court’s Confirmation Order regarding Debtors’ Plan, which provides for Montanaro’s lien.

Section 157(b)(2) classifies matters concerning estate administration, claims allowance, and turnover of estate property as core proceedings.

DeFlora Lake Development Associates, Inc. v. Hyde Park (In re DeFlora Lake Development Associates, Inc.) · filed 2017-07-19(b)(2)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(a), matters concerning administration of the estate, allowance or disal-lowance of claims against the estate, and orders to turn over property of the estate are core proceedings. Debtor’s complaint alleges sufficient jurisdictional facts to place these proceedings within this Court’s core jurisdiction.

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

Giuliano v. Schnabel (In re DSI Renal Holdings, LLC) · filed 2017-07-20(b)(2)(H)

Counts 1 through 4 are core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) and (b)(2)(H). The remaining counts are non-core.

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

Newman v. Associated Bank, National Ass'n (In re World Marketing Chicago, LLC) · filed 2017-07-31(b)(2)(H)

A proceeding to determinate, avoid, or recover fraudulent conveyances arises only as a result of a case under the Bankruptcy Code and is statutorily specified as a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(G) treats matters concerning the automatic stay as core proceedings within the bankruptcy court’s authority.

In re Whitlock-Young · filed 2017-08-10(b)(2)(G)

Matters concerning the automatic stay and the co-debtor stay are matters solely arising out of the bankruptcy case itself. As such, those matters are core proceedings and within the court’s statutory and constitutional authority. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G); In re Mahurkar Double Lumen Hemodialysis Catheter Patent Litig., 140 B.R. 969, 976-77 (N.D. Ill. 1992).

Section 157(b)(2)(L) treats confirmation of a chapter 13 plan as a core proceeding.

In re Garza · filed 2017-08-15(b)(2)(L)

Accordingly, this is a core matter as it pertains to confirmation of a chapter 13 plan. § 157(b)(2)(L); see also In re Sierra, 560 B.R. at 300; In Re Southmark Corp., 163 F.3d 925, 930 (5th Cir. 1999).

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

Santangelo Law Offices, P.C. v. Touchstone Home Health LLC (In re Touchstone Home Health LLC) · filed 2017-08-21(b)(2)(B)

The claims allowance and disallowance process is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2) identifies categories of bankruptcy matters that are core proceedings.

SNMP Research International, Inc. v. Nortel Networks Inc. (In re Nortel Networks Inc.) · filed 2017-08-21(b)(2)

The matters addressed during the Trial are core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(2) identifies categories of bankruptcy matters that are core proceedings.

In re Chambers · filed 2017-08-24(b)(2)

These are core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

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

In re Banks · filed 2017-08-31(b)(2)(A)

A proceeding to prosecute a violation of the automatic stay or a violation of the discharge injunction is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157 allows bankruptcy courts to hear and determine core proceedings, including matters concerning administration of the bankruptcy estate.

In re Fish & Fisher, Inc. · filed 2017-09-01(b)(1), (b)(2)(A)

This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties to this proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and 28 U.S.C. § 157. This is a core proceeding as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) and (2)(A).

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

In re John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC · filed 2017-09-13(b)(2)(A)

A proceeding to determine eligibility for relief under the Bankruptcy Code is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), over which this Court may exercise subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 157(b)(2)(H) treats fraudulent transfer claims as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Trinity 83 Development, LLC v. Colfin Midwest Funding, LLC (In re Trinity 83 Development, LLC) · filed 2017-09-13(b)(2)(H)

A fraudulent transfer claim is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H); see also In re Glick, 568 B.R. 634, 653 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2017).

Section 157(b)(2)(I) and (J) classify proceedings to determine dischargeability and objections to discharge as core proceedings.

Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Stokes (In re Stokes) · filed 2017-08-03(b)(2)(I), (J)

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

Section 157 permits district courts to refer bankruptcy matters to bankruptcy courts and treats matters concerning administration of the estate as core proceedings.

In re Ramirez · filed 2017-08-16(a), (b)(2)

Section 157 allows a district court to “refer” all bankruptcy and related cases to the bankruptcy court, wherein the latter court will appropriately preside over the matter. ... This is a core matter as it “concern[s] the administration of the estate.”

Section 157(b) gives bankruptcy courts authority to hear and determine core proceedings arising under title 11 or arising in a case under title 11.

Relativity Fashion, LLC v. Relativity Media, LLC · filed 2017-08-22(b)

Under the Bankruptcy Code, “[b]ankruptcy courts retain comprehensive power to resolve claims and enter orders or judgments” in “core proceedings,” i.e., cases “‘arising under title 11, or arising in a case under title 11.’” In Matter of Motors Liquidation Co., 829 F.3d 135, 153 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 1813 (2017). ... As in U.S. Lines and Petrie Retail, the impact of the parties’ dispute on core bankruptcy functions in Relativity’s reorganization renders this proceeding core. ... Accordingly, the instant dispute is a “core” proceeding over which the bankruptcy court was entitled to exercise jurisdiction because Netflix’s post-confirmation change of position would have both had a “significant impact on the administration of the estate,” In re U.S. Lines, Inc., 197 F.3d at 638, and undercut the creditor relief provided by the Plan, see In re Millenium Seacarriers, Inc., 419 F.3d 83, 97 (2d Cir. 2005) (“Bankruptcy courts retain jurisdiction to enforce and interpret their own orders.”)

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) identifies allowance or disallowance of estate claims and proceedings affecting liquidation of estate assets as core proceedings.

MF Global Holdings Ltd. v. Allied World Assurance Co. (In re MF Global Holdings Ltd.) · filed 2017-08-24(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(O)

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (0) provide that “[c]ore proceedings include” the “allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate,” and “other proceedings affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate,” among other things. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) & (0). But courts in this Circuit routinely recognize that bankruptcy disputes solely invoking the “catch-all” subparts (A) and (0) of section 157(b)(2) are typically non-core.

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

Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar v. Young (In re Young) · filed 2017-08-30(b)(2)(I)

This Court has jurisdiction of this matter by virtue of the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1834(a) and 157(a) and the delegation made to this Court by Order from the District Court on July 24, 1984 and Rule 3 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. This Court further concludes that this matter is a “core” bankruptcy proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157 (b)(2)(I).

Section 157(a) allows district courts to refer bankruptcy proceedings to bankruptcy judges, and § 157(b)(1) permits bankruptcy judges to enter final judgments in core proceedings.

Murphy v. Goldfine (In re Jefferson Development Partners, LLC) · filed 2017-09-01(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(B)

They arose in a bankruptcy case and therefore fall within the jurisdiction given the district court in 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) and, by a standing order of reference (codified in the district court’s local rules at L.R. 201, D. Mass.), referred to the bankruptcy court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a). They are core proceedings within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1). See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) and (0) (core proceedings include allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate and other proceedings affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate). The bankruptcy court accordingly has authority to enter final judgment on the underlying complaint in this adversary proceeding.

Section 157(b) treats plan confirmation as a core bankruptcy proceeding that a bankruptcy court may finally determine.

rue21 inc. v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (In re rue21, inc.) · filed 2017-09-08(b)

Confirmation of the Plan is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b), and this Court has jurisdiction to enter a Final Order determining that the Plan complies with the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and should be confirmed.

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

Feldman v. Pearl (In re Pearl) · filed 2017-09-29(b)(2)(I)

Plaintiffs non-dis-chargeability claims are core proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) and (E) classify exemption matters and orders to turn over estate property as core proceedings.

In re Awayda · filed 2017-10-18(b)(2)(B), (E)

Matters involving claimed exemptions in estate property and orders to turn over property of the estate are core proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), (E).

Section 157 treats claim objections and determinations of lien validity, extent, or priority as core proceedings that a bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

Cawood v. Seterus, Inc. (In re Cawood) · filed 2017-09-29(b)(2)(B), (b)(2)(E)

An objection to a claim is a matter arising in a bankruptcy case and is a core proceeding which this court may hear and determine. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(b) and 157(b)(2)(B). A determination of the validity, extent, or priority of a lien is also a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E). ... The court agrees with Plaintiff and, therefore, finds that his effort to obtain a determination of the amount of the lien falls squarely within that category of core proceedings and that this court has subject matter jurisdiction to determine the amount of the claim and the extent of the lien.

Section 157(b)(2) identifies core bankruptcy proceedings, including claims allowance and estate counterclaims.

Bavaria Yachts USA, LLLP v. Bavaria Yachtbau GmbH (In re Bavaria Yachts USA, LLLP) · filed 2017-10-10(b)(2)

The Court finds that although the State Law Claims here are statutorily core under § 157(b)(2), constitutionally they are non-core proceedings on which this Court cannot enter a final judgment, but rather proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for the District Court’s review.

Section 157(b)(2) sets out a nonexclusive list of proceedings that are core to the bankruptcy court's power.

Anderson v. Credit One Bank, N.A. (In re Anderson) · filed 2018-03-07(b)(2)

In 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2), Congress articulated “a nonexclusive list of 16 types of proceedings” that it considers “core” to the power of the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(b)(2) lists claims that, if pursued alone, constitute core proceedings, while claims pursued within a larger adversary case are part of that entire proceeding.

In re HNRC Dissolution Co. · filed 2018-06-01(b)(2)

In the first place, § 157 does not address abstention. It also does not explicitly state that each claim delineated therein must be treated as its own discreet proceeding when arising in a complaint that includes other such claims. Instead, the Panel reads § 157 as simply providing a list of claims each of which, if pursued alone, would be sufficient to constitute a “proceeding.” Here, however, the discreet claims upon which Giese relies were not pursued alone. They were a part of a larger adversary case involving numerous other claims. It was that entire adversary case that constituted a “proceeding” under § 1334.

Section 157(b)(2) identifies claims against the estate and objections to discharges as core proceedings.

Siewe v. Locci · filed 2018-05-08(b)(2)

The adversary proceeding in this case, based on Locci’s proof of claim and her objection to discharge, was a core proceeding. See Wortley v. Bakst, 844 F.3d 1313, 1319 (11th Cir. 2017) (“Core proceedings . . . are those that involve a right created by the federal bankruptcy law or that would arise only in bankruptcy, such as the filing of a proof of claim or an objection to the discharge of a particular debt.” (quotation marks omitted) (alteration adopted)); see 11 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) (core proceedings include “claims against the estate” and “objections to discharges”).

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

Homaidan v. SLM Corp. (In re Homaidan) · filed 2018-07-25(b)(2)(I)

As a starting point for this analysis, Judiciary Code Section 157(b)(2)(I) states that "determinations as to the dischargeability of particular debts" are core proceedings.

Section 157(b)(2)(G) treats motions to terminate or modify the automatic stay as core proceedings.

Topfer v. Topfer (In re Topfer) · filed 2018-07-25(b)(2)(G)

A matter concerning the termination or modification of the automatic stay is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(1) authorizes bankruptcy courts to enter final orders in core proceedings, including disputes over dischargeability, exemptions, and liens.

Old Republic National Title Insurance v. Levasseur (In re Levasseur) · filed 2012-10-29(b)(1)

All three are core proceedings within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

Proceedings to determine dischargeability or deny discharge are core proceedings under § 157(b)(1).

Zutrau v. Zutrau (In re Zutrau) · filed 2012-11-13(b)(1)

The counts for determination of dischargeability and for denial of discharge are core proceedings within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats a trustee’s exercise of lien avoidance and preservation powers as a core proceeding.

DeGiacomo v. Traverse (Traverse) · filed 2013-02-04(b)(2)(K)

Without question, that exercise is statutorily “core” under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K).

Section 157 treats fraud-on-the-court claims against the debtor as core proceedings.

Tera Res. Co. v. Lee (In re Cuzco Dev. United Statesa., LLC) · filed 2018-03-20(b)

In any event, it is clear that, while some of the claims asserted in the complaint are "core proceedings" (such as Tera's claims against Cuzco USA for fraud on the court), other claims are not even "related to" Cuzco USA's bankruptcy case.