28 U.S.C. § 157

Section 157(b)(2)(B), (G), and (L) classifies claim objections, stay relief requests, and plan confirmation as core proceedings.

Leslie Dionne Hughes · filed 2020-08-12(b)(2)(B), (G), (L)

These matters constitute core proceedings, over which this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), (G), (L); 1334.

Section 157 treats an adversary complaint concerning nondischargeability as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Halaw v. Wilding · filed 2020-08-17(b)(2)(I) and (J)

Non- dischargeability is an issue of a substantive right that arises under Title 11, and therefore, the Court has "core" jurisdiction over the Adversary Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I) and (J).

Section 157 treats objections to discharge and determinations of a particular debt’s dischargeability as core proceedings.

UMB Bank, N.A. v. Murphy · filed 2020-09-02(b)(2)(I), (J)

Objections to discharge and the determination of the dischargeability of a particular debt are core proceedings.

Section 157(b)(2) classifies matters concerning estate administration, stay relief, and plan confirmation as core proceedings.

Northbelt, LLC · filed 2020-09-02(b)(2)(A), (G), (L)

The matters before the Court constitute core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (G), & (L).

Section 157(b)(2)(O) treats a determination of claimed exemptions that affects estate liquidation or the creditor and debtor relationship as a core proceeding.

Robert Marcus Michelena and Monica Michelena · filed 2020-08-24(b)(2)(O)

Furthermore, a determination of Debtor’s claimed exemptions is a proceeding that affects the liquidation of assets of the estate or the adjustment of the creditor and debtor relationship, it is a core matter under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(O).

Section 157(b)(3) assigns the bankruptcy judge the determination whether a proceeding is core or otherwise related to a bankruptcy case.

TitanUrbi21, LLC v. GS Oilfield Services, LLC · filed 2020-08-27(b)(3)

As other district courts have found, section 157(b)(3) suggests that the Bankruptcy Court is best able to determine the scope of its own jurisdiction.

Section 157 treats proceedings to avoid fraudulent conveyances under § 544 as core proceedings that a district court may delegate to a bankruptcy judge for final disposition.

Kelley v. Boosalis · filed 2020-09-11(b)(1), (b)(2)(H)

Proceedings to avoid fraudulent conveyances under § 544 are “core proceedings arising under title 11” that the district court may delegate to a bankruptcy court judge for final disposition. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), (b)(2)(H).

Section 157(b)(2) does not classify contract and tort claims as core proceedings merely because they may affect a bankruptcy estate.

Zohar CDO 2003-1, Ltd. v. Patriarch Partners, LLC · filed 2020-09-18(b)(2)

On their face, the Patriarch Parties’ claims are not core proceedings under the contemplation of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). Their plethora of contract and tort claims do not owe their existence to the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 157(b)(2)’s list of core proceedings does not encompass contract and tort claims that do not rely on the Bankruptcy Code to exist.

Tilton v. MBIA Inc. · filed 2020-09-18(b)(2)

On their face, Tilton’s claims do not fall within the non-exhaustive list of core proceedings set forth in Section 157(b)(2). She asserts a plethora of contract and tort causes of action, none of which rely on the Bankruptcy Code to exist.

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

In re: Patriot National, Inc. · filed 2020-09-30(b)(2)(L)

Because plan “[c]onfirmation is a core proceeding to which mandatory abstention does not apply,” the Bankruptcy Court properly held that mandatory abstention was not required.

Section 157 treats matters concerning estate administration and determinations of dischargeability as core proceedings within a bankruptcy court’s authority.

In Re: Johns-Manville Corporation · filed 2020-09-30(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(I)

This Court concludes that the Bankruptcy Court had subject matter jurisdiction over Appellee’s motion, because the motion “is a ‘core proceeding’ under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), matters concerning the administration of the estate, and § 157(b)(2)(I), proceedings to determine the dischargeability of debt.”

Section 157(b)(2) treats the avoidance and automatic-stay claims addressed here as core proceedings that the bankruptcy court may finally decide.

Englander v. Blunt, Sr. · filed 2020-09-30(b)(2)

This adversary raises statutorily core claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §157(b)(2)(A), (E), (F), (H) and (O). ... Moreover, the claims brought under §547, §549 and §362 are claims arising under the Bankruptcy Code and are core proceedings over which this court has authority to enter final orders.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) and (J) classifies dischargeability determinations and objections to discharge as core proceedings that a bankruptcy court is authorized to decide.

In Re: Erica Lynn Milton v. · filed 2020-10-15(b)(2)(I), (J)

However, here, the Bankruptcy Court did not adjudicate a claim regarding Lepre’s rights to the property; rather, it rendered a judgment in a “protypical bankruptcy context, a dischargeability action,” which it was authorized to do.

Section 157 treats a motion to retroactively annul the automatic stay as a core proceeding that may be referred to the bankruptcy court.

POTTER v. NEWKIRK · filed 2020-10-20(b)(2)(G)

A motion to retroactively annul an automatic stay is a “core” proceeding, and thus may be referred to the Bankruptcy Court as a “proceeding arising under Title 11.”

Section 157(b)(2)(K) and (O) do not classify trespass and injunction claims as core proceedings when they assert no interest in estate property and do not affect its liquidation.

KHR Properties, LLC v. JTS Trucking LLC · filed 2020-11-04(b)(2)(K), (b)(2)(O)

Because the trespass claim and requested injunctive relief against the Debtor are not interests in or claims against the estate’s real property, the Lawsuit is not core under either subsection.

Section 157 treats interpretation of a bankruptcy court’s sale order as a core proceeding in which the court may enter a final order.

Engineered Floors, LLC v. Beaulieu of America, Inc. · filed 2020-11-16(b)(2)(N)

Therefore, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction to determine the Motions and enter final orders with respect to interpretation of the Sale Order and the APA because interpretation of the Sale Order is within the Court’s core jurisdiction.

Section 157(b)(2)(O) covers a proceeding that, by its nature, can arise only in a bankruptcy case as a core proceeding.

Two Wheels Properties, LLC. · filed 2020-12-30(b)(2)(O)

This proceeding is also core under the general “catch-all” language because such a suit is the type of proceeding that can only arise in the context of a bankruptcy case.

Section 157(b)(2) treats matters concerning estate administration and proceedings affecting estate liquidation or debtor-creditor relationships as core proceedings.

Lee v. Choudhri · filed 2021-01-14(b)(2)(A), (L), and (O)

The Order addressed a question that was within the Court’s core jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157 (b)(2)(A), (L), and (O) as “matters concerning the administration of the estate” and “proceedings affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate or the adjustment of the debtor-creditor or the equity security holder relationship.”

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

Tashanna B. Golden fka Tashanna B. Pearson on beha v. Discover Bank · filed 2021-01-25(b)(2)(I)

And a review of the applicable law makes it equally plain that the questions of the dischargeability of a debt, and whether the bankruptcy discharge has been violated, are core proceedings. 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) treats a dispute over a mortgage modification agreement as a core proceeding when resolving it is part of claims allowance or concerns a counterclaim against a creditor that filed a claim.

Davis v. PNC Mortgage, a division of PNC Bank, N.A. · filed 2021-01-29(b)(2)(B), (b)(2)(C)

Thus, it is clear that the claims made against PNC are matters under § 157(b)(2)(B) concerning the “allowance and disallowance of claims” or under § 157(b)(2)(C) concerning “counterclaims by the estate against persons filing claims against the estate.”

Section 157(b)(3) generally assigns the core or non-core determination to the bankruptcy judge, though a district court may decide it when no determination has been made.

D'Iberville Promenade, LLC v. CBL-D'Iberville Member, LLC · filed 2022-01-11(b)(3)

Although the Court may decide whether the proceeding is core or non-core where no prior determination has been made, In re White, 172 B.R. 841, 844 n.7 (S.D. Miss. 1994), the Court declines to do so here and leaves this determination to the judgment of the bankruptcy court.

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

Johnson v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE · filed 2022-05-02(b)(2)(I)

This Court has jurisdiction of this matter by virtue of the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(a) and 157(a) and the referral made to this Court by Order from the District Court on December 6, 1994 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(b)(2)(E) and (O) place this adversary proceeding within the category of core bankruptcy proceedings.

Johns v. Martin · filed 2022-05-03(b)(2)(E) and (O)

This Court has jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(a) and 157(a). The Court concludes that this matter is a “core” bankruptcy proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E) and (O).

Section 157(b)(2) identifies which proceedings qualify as core proceedings for bankruptcy court jurisdiction.

The Huntington National Bank v. Yost · filed 2022-05-03(b)(2)

First, these claims are not based on any right expressly created by Title 11, nor are they specifically identified as core proceedings in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(2) identifies which bankruptcy proceedings are core proceedings within the bankruptcy court’s authority.

Stephens, Jr. v. The Huntington National Bank · filed 2022-05-03(b)(2)

First, these claims are not based on any right expressly created by Title 11, nor are they specifically identified as core proceedings in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157 authorizes bankruptcy judges to enter final judgments in qualifying proceedings and requires them to determine whether proceedings are core or related.

Velocity Capital Group, LLC v. Trapp · filed 2022-05-05(b)(1), (b)(3)

A bankruptcy judge to whom a case has been referred has statutory authority to enter final judgment on any proceeding arising under the Bankruptcy Code or arising in a case under the Bankruptcy Code. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1). Bankruptcy judges must therefore determine, on motion or sua sponte, whether a proceeding is a core proceeding or is otherwise related to a case under the Bankruptcy Code. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3). The bankruptcy court may hear and determine such matters. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

Section 157 defines core bankruptcy proceedings to include matters arising under or in a case under title 11 and confirmation of a bankruptcy plan.

America-CV Station Group, Inc. · filed 2024-02-13(b)(1), (b)(2)(L)

Confirmation of a bankruptcy plan is a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. §157(b)(2)(L). ... Core proceedings are defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) as “proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in a case under title 11,” which is a subset of the cases over which jurisdiction is granted in § 1334(b).

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to enter a final order on a motion to impose the automatic stay when the motion is a core proceeding arising under the Bankruptcy Code and in the bankruptcy case.

Marcello Philip Gasperini and Andrea Lynn Gasperini · filed 2025-05-29(b)(1), (b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(G)

The Court may hear and determine the present Motion by entry of a final order under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) because it is a core proceeding as it arises under the Bankruptcy Code6 and arises in this bankruptcy case, and is included as a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (G).

Section 157(b)(5) does not prevent a district court from dismissing a bankruptcy-related wrongful death claim in favor of a foreign forum under forum non conveniens.

Baumgart v. Fairchild Aircraft Corp. · filed 1993-01-20(b)(5)

Accordingly, we hold that § 157(b)(5) does not abrogate the doctrine of forum non conveniens in the context of foreign transfers and that the district court was not precluded by such statute from dismissing the instant action on forum non conveniens grounds.

Section 157 does not deprive state courts of jurisdiction to decide whether the automatic stay applies to a proceeding before them.

Siskin v. Complete Aircraft Services, Inc. (In Re Siskin) · filed 2001-02-13(b)(2)(G)

A proceeding to determine whether the automatic stay applies to a prepetition state court action is a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) which arises in or is related to a bankruptcy case and, absent a provision in 11 U.S.C. § 362 or 28 U.S.C. § 157 depriving state courts of jurisdiction, the state courts have concurrent jurisdiction to decide the issue of whether the State Court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear the matter.

Section 157(b)(5) governs federal district courts and does not bar state court review of the dismissal of a personal injury suit filed in state court.

Polello v. Knapp · filed 1993-02-23(b)(5)

We fail to see how section 157(b)(5), governing federal district courts, is relevant to this appeal.

Section 157 treats a motion to abstain in a non-core related-to proceeding as a core matter that the bankruptcy court may finally decide.

Nickless v. Creare, Inc. (In Re Haverhill Technology Group) · filed 2004-06-09(b)(2)

Thus, a motion to abstain, at least in a non-core “related to” proceeding, falls within the quintessential definition of a core proceeding. It is a procedure that, by its very nature, can only exist in connection with a bankruptcy case. It is the type of core proceeding contemplated by the expansive language of 28 U.S.C. § 157(a)(2)(0).

Section 157(a) authorizes bankruptcy judges, through the general reference of cases and proceedings, to hear motions for abstention in the first instance.

Peaksolutions Corp. v. Ohio, Department of Transportation (In Re Peaksolutions Corp.) · filed 1994-05-25(a)

Although the statute refers to the district court, bankruptcy judges have authority to hear motions for abstention in the first instance, as part of the general reference of cases and proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a).

An order granting withdrawal of a bankruptcy referral under § 157(d) is interlocutory and cannot be appealed before final judgment.

In the Matter of Guy E. McGaughey Jr., Debtor-Appellant · filed 1994-07-22(d)

Since the order granting a motion to withdraw is not a final judgment, this court lacks jurisdiction to review that order at this point in the litigation.

Section 157(a) does not give a bankruptcy court acting on reference from a district court authority to vacate that district court’s order.

Federal Trade Commission v. Wright (In Re Wright) · filed 1995-10-25(a)

As a court which enjoys its jurisdiction only on reference from the District Court, 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), this Court has no authority to vacate that Order.

Section 157 grants bankruptcy courts jurisdiction over core and related proceedings, with non-core matters limited to findings and recommendations.

Nelson v. Providian National Bank (In Re Nelson) · filed 1999-01-20

In order to establish this Court’s jurisdiction, the matter must be within the jurisdictional parameters set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 157 which grants jurisdiction to the bankruptcy court on “core” and “related” civil proceedings. ... While it is true that this Court has jurisdiction over matters which are merely related and non-core, its jurisdiction is limited to making findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157 permits district courts to refer bankruptcy cases and proceedings within section 1334 jurisdiction to bankruptcy courts.

United States Trustee v. Gryphon at the Stone Mansion, Inc., D/B/A Erik Lewis Global D/B/A Wanner Van Helden · filed 1999-01-28(a)-(b)

The Bankruptcy Court, by virtue of referral by the District Court, has jurisdiction over cases falling under these categories. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(a)-(b).

Section 157 permits bankruptcy courts to exercise only jurisdiction first granted to district courts under § 1334.

Williams v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (In Re Williams) · filed 2000-01-19

The jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts, as § 157’s terms make clear, is derivative: They can only exercise jurisdiction if that jurisdiction has been first granted to the district courts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334.

Section 157 gives bankruptcy courts jurisdiction over civil matters arising under, arising in, or related to title 11, while federal criminal jurisdiction remains with district courts.

In Re Szabo Contracting, Inc. · filed 2002-09-26

Only civil matters arising under, arising in and related to title 11 are heard by the bankruptcy court pursuant to its jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157. All federal criminal jurisdiction is vested solely in the district court and not in the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(b)(2)(L) treats confirmation of a reorganization plan as a core proceeding within the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction.

In Re J T Thorpe Co. · filed 2003-01-17(b)(2)(L)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(B) prevents a bankruptcy court from fixing the value of personal injury claims for distribution but permits it to decide their legal validity.

In Re G-I Holdings, Inc. · filed 2005-02-01(b)(2)(B)

The § 157(b)(2)(B) personal injury exclusion prevents a bankruptcy court from addressing only certain aspects of the claims allowance process, namely, fixing the value of a claim for purposes of distribution. It does not limit a bankruptcy court’s ability to address substantive issues regarding the validity of claims against the estate as a matter of law.

Section 157 gives bankruptcy courts authority to hear and determine matters under, arising under, arising in, or related to a bankruptcy case.

Atamian v. U.S. Department of Education (In Re Atamian) · filed 2007-05-10

The Court has jurisdiction over all cases arising under title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”). 28 U.S.C. § 157. A bankruptcy court can generally hear and determine matters “under,” “arising under,” “arising in,” or “related to” a case under the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 157(c)(1) lets a bankruptcy court hear non-core proceedings related to a bankruptcy case but requires proposed findings and conclusions for district court review when the parties do not consent to final judgment.

In Re: Winstar Comm · filed 2009-02-03(c)(1)

A bankruptcy court may enter final judgments only to “core proceedings” absent consent of the parties. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)-(c). ... Even if a claim is not a core proceeding, a bankruptcy court may still have jurisdiction over the claim if the claim is “related to a case under title 11,” i.e. the Bankruptcy Code. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). However, the bankruptcy court (absent consent of the parties not present here) may only submit “proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law” that are subject to de novo review by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). ... Thus, the Trustee’s breach of contract claim falls within § 157(c)(1) because resolution of that claim “could conceivably have [an] effect on the estate being administered in bankruptcy.”

Section 157(a) covers a proceeding integral to a bankruptcy when its outcome affects the money available to other creditors.

Great American Group, Inc. v. LaSalle Bank, N.A. · filed 2009-03-18(a)

How much money is available for other creditors depends on the disposition of this proceeding, which is an integral part of Goldblatt’s bankruptcy. Jurisdiction under §157(a) cannot reasonably be doubted.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear a proceeding whose outcome could affect the bankruptcy estate, even when the defendant did not participate in the bankruptcy case and the debtor brought the claim.

Turner v. Universal Debt Solutions, Inc. (In Re Turner) · filed 2010-08-13(c)(1)

UDS’s arguments have no merit. The fact that it did not participate in Turner’s chapter 13 case has no bearing on whether Turner’s claims are “related to” that case. The same goes for the fact that Turner, rather than the trustee, brought the claims against UDS. ... For these reasons, the bankruptcy court was correct to conclude that it had jurisdiction over Turner’s claims and UDS’s objection will be overruled.

Section 157 allows bankruptcy judges to hear cases arising under Title 11 when referred by the district court.

In Re Mitrano · filed 2012-03-28

As an initial matter, the bankruptcy court possessed subject matter jurisdiction over the adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157, which allows bankruptcy judges to hear cases arising under Title 11 and referred by the district court.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) gives bankruptcy courts authority to hear and determine claims against the bankruptcy estate.

In Re Montgomery Ward, L.L.C. · filed 2012-04-20(b)(2)(B)

Bankruptcy courts have the statutory authority to hear and determine the “allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(c)(1) gives bankruptcy courts authority to hear non-core claims and submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court.

Davenport v. Djourabchi · filed 2017-11-01(c)(1)

With respect to non-core claims, which are "otherwise related to a case under title 11," bankruptcy courts have statutory authority to hear the proceedings and "submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court." § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(b)(2)(J) grants bankruptcy courts jurisdiction to adjudicate objections to discharge without making timeliness a jurisdictional condition.

In re Jackson · filed 2018-05-11(b)(2)(J)

Because § 157 does not use time as a qualification on bankruptcy courts’ jurisdiction, the Supreme Court is free to fill this void and prescribe its own, non-jurisdictional, time limitations.

Section 157(c)(1) permits bankruptcy courts to handle non-core claims related to a bankruptcy case.

Fort v. SunTrust Bank · filed 2018-05-30(c)(1)

Though the Trustee’s claims ordinarily would be treated as “core”—meaning the bankruptcy court has final authority to adjudicate them, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)—here, the proceedings in the bankruptcy court were proper under its “related-to” jurisdiction.

Section 157 allows district courts to refer bankruptcy proceedings to bankruptcy judges and defines the scope of bankruptcy court authority.

McDougall v. Ag Country Farm Credit Service · filed 2018-07-09(a)

Bankruptcy courts, by reference from the district courts, have “original but not exclusive jurisdiction of all civil proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in or related to cases under title 11.” 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b); 28 U.S.C. § 157(a).

Section 157 limits bankruptcy court jurisdiction to core matters arising under Title 11 or in a Title 11 case, and to noncore matters related to a Title 11 case.

In re Judson · filed 2018-07-13

Bankruptcy courts' jurisdiction is limited to "core" matters that arise under Title 11 or arise in a case under Title 11, and on a lesser basis, noncore matters that are "related-to" cases under Title 11.

Section 157’s subject matter jurisdiction does not by itself give a bankruptcy court power over a third-party claim; an actual proceeding and personal jurisdiction are also required.

In re Aegean Marine Petroleum Network Inc. · filed 2019-04-08

Second, sections 157 and 1334 just describe the scope of a bankruptcy court's potential subject matter jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction alone is not enough to give a court power over a litigation claim or over a proceeding. Instead, in addition to an actual proceeding, the court needs to have personal jurisdiction over the relevant parties.

Section 157(b) permits a bankruptcy court to decide core proceedings only when jurisdiction exists under § 1334.

Point Center Financial, Inc. v. Grobstein · filed 2020-04-29(b)

Section 157(b) clearly “is not the source of the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction,” and it “applies only if there is jurisdiction in the first place under 28 U.S.C. § 1334.”

Section 157(a) limits bankruptcy court jurisdiction to referred bankruptcy cases and proceedings arising under, arising in, or related to a title 11 case; it does not authorize referral of other supplemental claims.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee U v. Karr · filed 2021-01-13(a)

But that argument ignores 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) which is the exclusive conduit of all bankruptcy court jurisdiction.

Section 157 permits bankruptcy judges to hear core proceedings and related non-core proceedings, though their authority to decide them differs.

Cordero v. Yanagi · filed 2021-03-22

Although Appellants assert, without citing legal support, that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction because the § 363(h) sale did not involve a core proceeding, this argument is meritless.

Section 157(a) does not authorize a bankruptcy court to compel a government agency to investigate alleged crimes.

In re: Inglewood Womans Club, Inc. · filed 2017-06-07(a)

Because a bankruptcy court does not have the power to compel other independent governmental agencies to investigate criminal matters, Ms. Fearing’s request falls outside any relief the bankruptcy court could have sanctioned under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(a) ... or 1334.

Section 157 does not extend a bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction to a commercial lease dispute between nondebtors that does not affect administration of the bankruptcy estate.

In Re: High Flow Funding LLC · filed 2025-04-14

Thus, even in light of the “broad interpretation corresponding to constitutional limits” of a Bankruptcy Court’s jurisdiction, the Court must conclude that the Bankruptcy Court lacked jurisdiction over the underlying dispute regarding the Lease, and that the Bankruptcy Court’s jurisdiction over Sorbello’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding did not extend to the underlying dispute regarding the Lease.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) permits a bankruptcy court to enter a money judgment when it has authority to determine the debt’s dischargeability.

Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency v. Perry (In re Perry) · filed 2016-07-11(b)(2)(I)

In the absence of authority to grant a determination of nondischargeability (due to the mootness of that issue), this bankruptcy court no longer has authority or subject matter jurisdiction to enter a money judgment for Plaintiff. That is so because the Court’s authority and subject matter jurisdiction to enter a money judgment in this adversary proceeding was wholly dependant on its statutory authority, under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I), to determine the discharge-ability of Defendant-Debtor’s debt to Plaintiff.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) designates debt dischargeability as a core bankruptcy proceeding; state courts may determine the validity and amount of the underlying claims.

Credit Investments, Inc. v. United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado · filed 2015-11-05(b)(2)(I)

Thus, debt dischargeability is designated as a “core” bankruptcy proceeding, over which bankruptcy courts have exclusive jurisdiction.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) permits a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment on the amount of a state-law debt when resolving whether that debt is dischargeable.

Cowin v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (In re Cowin) · filed 2015-09-29(b)(2)(I)

The bankruptcy court did' not err in entering final judgment determining the existence and amount of the state-law damages claims against Cowin and their dischargeability.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) makes dischargeability a core proceeding, allowing a bankruptcy court to fix the amount of a nondischargeable debt and enter a money judgment.

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Vinecki (In Re Vinecki) · filed 2000-03-28(b)(2)(I)

It is without doubt that a determination of an exception to discharge pursuant to Section 523(a)(2)(A) is pure core proceeding 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I). Thus, it is uniquely within the Bankruptcy Court’s competence to make such determination and enter final dispositive orders or judgments. There is no good reason why the core characteristic of a proceeding should not extend to the determination of the exact amount of a debt which is excepted from the discharge.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to enter a monetary judgment for a specific debt it determines to be nondischargeable.

Simek v. Erdman (In Re Erdman) · filed 1999-05-25(b)(1)

Rendering a determination as to the nondis-chargeability of a particular debt in a specific sum is tantamount to liquidating the claim, and 28 U.S.C. § 157(2)(B) and (0) strongly suggest that bankruptcy courts have authority to liquidate all claims except personal injury and wrongful death claims. This Court concludes that in § 523 actions where a specific sum has been determined to be nondischargeable, the claim thereby becomes liquidated to that extent, and a monetary judgment should be entered.

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to fix damages and enter a money judgment in a dischargeability proceeding.

Valencia v. Lucero (In Re Valencia) · filed 1997-10-17(b)(1)

This appeal presents the narrow issue whether a bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to quantify damages and enter a money judgment in a dischargeability proceeding under 11 U.S.C. § 523 and 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1). ... For these reasons, I am persuaded that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to fix damages and enter judgment in favor of Appellee.

Section 157 treats a money judgment entered with a dischargeability determination as part of the core proceeding, even when a state court has already entered judgment on the debt.

Heckert v. Dotson (In Re Heckert) · filed 1998-11-09(b)

A dischargeability proceeding is undoubtedly a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157. ... Perhaps more importantly, however, the function of the court in entering a money judgment is too closely wrapped up with the function of the court in determining dis-chargeability to divide the two for purposes of jurisdiction.

Section 157(b)(1) does not authorize a bankruptcy court to enter a separate money judgment in a dischargeability proceeding when another court has already reduced the debt to judgment.

Smith v. Lachter (In Re Smith) · filed 1999-12-09(b)(1)

It follows that a separate judgment is not necessary when the claim has already been reduced to judgment by another court of competent jurisdiction. Since the bankruptcy court’s authority to impose the judgment is premised on the need to extend complete relief, it is without authority to do so when the relief is not needed.

Section 157(b) permits a bankruptcy court to enter a monetary judgment in an adversary proceeding to determine dischargeability of a debt.

Hixson v. Hixson (In Re Hixson) · filed 2000-08-18(b)

This Court has jurisdiction to enter monetary judgments in adversary proceedings brought to determine dischargeability of debts.

Section 157(b)(1) does not authorize a bankruptcy court deciding dischargeability to replace an existing state court money judgment with its own judgment.

Dotson v. Heckert · filed 2001-11-16(b)(1)

In sum, the authority granted the bankruptcy court under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) and 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) to enter orders, and the authority granted by 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b), 11 U.S.C. § 523(a) and Bankruptcy Rule 4007 to determine the dischargeability of a debt does not either explicitly or implicitly amend the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1738, which requires the courts of the United States to give full faith and credit to the judgments of state courts.

Section 157(b)(1) authorizes bankruptcy courts to enter judgments, but does not authorize replacing an existing state court judgment in a dischargeability proceeding.

In Re: Ransford Craig Heckert, Debtor. Ransford Craig Heckert, A/K/A R.C. Heck Heckert v. Dotson · filed 2001-11-16(b)(1)

In sum, the authority granted the bankruptcy court under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) and 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) to enter orders, and the authority granted by 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b), 11 U.S.C. § 523(a) and Bankruptcy Rule 4007 to determine the dis-chargeability of a debt does not either explicitly or implicitly amend the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1738, which requires the courts of the United States to give full faith and credit to the judgments of state courts.

Section 157 permits bankruptcy courts to award money damages in proceedings to determine whether a debt is dischargeable.

Lang v. Lang (In Re Lang) · filed 2003-05-28

In accordance with these other circuits, we conclude that under the broad congressional grant of jurisdiction given to bankruptcy courts under 28 U.S.C. ง 157, bankruptcy courts have the jurisdiction to award money damages in a ง 523(a) proceeding.

Section 157(b)(1) authorizes bankruptcy courts to enter money judgments in dischargeability proceedings.

Baker v. Friedman (In Re Friedman) · filed 2003-10-03(b)(1)

Having reviewed the decisions cited by the parties, as well as the circuit court decisions, this Court concludes that bankruptcy courts have jurisdiction to enter money judgments. Section 157(b) of Title 28 expressly provides that “bankruptcy judges may hear and determine ... all core proceedings ... and may enter appropriate ... judgments.”

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to enter a monetary judgment on a debt it finds nondischargeable in a core proceeding.

Morrison v. Western Builders of Amarillo, Inc. (In Re Morrison) · filed 2009-01-16(b)(1), (b)(2)(I)

Nevertheless, while acknowledging the tension, we too conclude that jurisdiction existed to issue, if not necessarily later to enforce, the personal judgment against Morrison.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court deciding dischargeability to liquidate a nondischargeable debt and enter a money judgment.

In Re Asbury · filed 2009-07-14(b)(1)

These are core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(J) over which the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(b), 157(a), and 157(b)(1). ... In conformity with the bankruptcy courts of this Circuit and the appellate courts which have considered this issue, I find that I have jurisdiction to enter a money judgment on claims for non-dischargeable debts.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to enter a monetary judgment on a disputed state law claim while determining whether the debt is nondischargeable.

Ward v. Paul Revere Life Insurance (In re Ward) · filed 2009-10-08(b)(2)(I)

Contrary to Ward’s contention, “the Bankruptcy Court has jurisdiction to enter a monetary judgment on a disputed state law claim in the course of making a determination that a debt is nondischargeable.”

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court adjudicating a referred core nondischargeability proceeding to liquidate the debt and enter a monetary judgment.

Johnson v. Riebesell (In Re Riebesell) · filed 2009-10-28

In accordance with this grant of jurisdiction, district courts may refer “core” and “related-to” proceedings to the bankruptcy courts for adjudication. See 28 U.S.C. § 157. ... Finding these cases persuasive, we conclude that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to enter a monetary judgment against Mr. Riebesell as a part of this adversarial proceeding.

Section 157(b)(1) authorizes bankruptcy courts to enter money judgments for nondischargeable debts in dischargeability proceedings.

Old Republic National Title Insurance v. Vermilio (In Re Vermilio) · filed 2011-02-11(b)(1)

A Bankruptcy Court is empowered to hear and determine all core proceedings, which include determinations as to the dischargeability of particular debts, and “enter appropriate orders and judgments.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1). Such judgments include money judgments for nondischargeable debts.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) authorizes a bankruptcy judge deciding nondischargeability to enter a final dollar judgment when determining the debt’s amount is necessary to resolve the creditor’s claim.

Dragisic Ex Rel. White Eagle, Inc. v. Boricich (In Re Boricich) · filed 2011-11-15(b)(2)(I)

Therefore, the authority to enter a final dollar judgment as part of the adjudication of nondischargeability, as recognized in Hallaban, was not impaired by Stem.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) treats debt dischargeability determinations as core proceedings on which bankruptcy courts may enter final judgments.

Deitz v. Ford · filed 2014-07-28(b)(2)(I)

As a result, Congress has provided that the bankruptcy court may enter a final judgment on exception to discharge claims, subject only to appellate review. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I).

Section 157(b)(2)(I) gives a bankruptcy court authority to determine dischargeability and liquidate the underlying debt under applicable state law.

Deloycheet, Inc. v. Beach (In re Beach) · filed 2017-04-07(b)(2)(I)

The court has jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I), 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b), and the district court’s order of reference. It has the authority to both determine the dischargeability of De-loycheet’s claim, and to liquidate the underlying debt under applicable state law.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) does not authorize a bankruptcy court to enter a money judgment when the dischargeability issue is moot.

Michael T Wan and Xinyan Wan · filed 2019-10-16(b)(2)(I)

Because the non-dischargeability issue is moot, this Court cannot enter a money judgment in favor of the Creditor and against the Debtor. The Court’s authority and subject matter jurisdiction to enter such a money judgment is “wholly dependent on its statutory authority, under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I), to determine the dischargeability of [the Debtor’s] debt [to the Creditor].”

Section 157(b)(2)(I)'s authority over dischargeability proceedings does not support a money judgment when dischargeability is already resolved and no bankruptcy-related need remains.

MM Education LLC v. Barnhardt · filed 2021-02-26(b)(2)(I)

In other words, without the determination of nondischargeability of debt or some other bankruptcy-related necessity, the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to issue a money judgment.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) gives a bankruptcy court authority to enter a money judgment as part of determining whether a debt is dischargeable; that authority ends when the dischargeability claim becomes moot.

Surgical Capital Solutions, Inc. v. Awaisi · filed 2021-04-27(b)(2)(I)

That is because the Court’s authority and subject matter jurisdiction to enter a money judgment in this adversary proceeding was dependant on its statutory authority, under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I), to determine the dischargeability of Defendant-Debtor’s debt to Plaintiff.

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy court deciding dischargeability to state the amount of a debt established by a state court judgment.

Botelho v. Buscone · filed 2023-02-22(b)(1)

Narrowly viewed as such,30 we cannot conclude that the bankruptcy court's judgment exceeded its jurisdiction.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) makes dischargeability determinations core proceedings in which a bankruptcy court may enter a final judgment, including a judgment fixing the amount of the debt.

In re: Shawn Deitz · filed 2012-04-23(b)(2)(I)

As a result, Congress has provided that the bankruptcy court may enter a final judgment on exception to discharge claims, subject only to appellate review. ... We hold that, even after Stern, the bankruptcy court had the constitutional authority to enter a final judgment determining both the amount of Fords’ damage claims against Deitz, and determining that those claims were excepted from discharge.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) authorizes a bankruptcy court to determine dischargeability; when that issue becomes moot, the court lacks authority to enter an associated money judgment.

Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency v. Pettibone (In re Pettibone) · filed 2017-12-18(b)(2)(I)

This Court’s authority and subject matter jurisdiction to enter a money judgment in this adversary proceeding was wholly dependant on its statutory authority, under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I), to determine the dischargeability of Defendant’s debt to the Agency.

Section 157’s authority over core bankruptcy matters does not make a bankruptcy judge a district judge for purposes of following district court precedent.

IRR Supply Centers, Inc. v. Phipps (In Re Phipps) · filed 1998-02-17

Therefore, I do not sit in the stead of a district judge even in “core” bankruptcy matters see 28 U.S.C. § 157, and, in my view, no reading of the statutory structure establishes otherwise.

Section 157(c)(1) lets a bankruptcy court hear related proceedings and submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court.

Zazzali v. 1031 Exchange Group (In Re DBSI, Inc.) · filed 2012-04-12(c)(1)

The recommendation system that Mov-ants are disparaging is the exact mechanism that 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) — and the court in Stem — contemplates and that has long been used by bankruptcy and district courts across the country.

Section 157(b)(2) treats proceedings to enforce the Bankruptcy Code’s discharge injunction as core proceedings.

In Re Kewanee Boiler Corp. · filed 2002-01-02(b)(2)(O)

Proceedings to enforce the statutory injunction under § 524(a)(2) are core proceedings under 28 U.S.C § 157(b)(2)(0), and willful violations of § 524(a)(2) are punishable or otherwise enforceable by judges using authority under § 105(a) of the Code.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a proceeding to enforce a Chapter 11 discharge as a core proceeding.

In Re USH Corp. of New York · filed 2002-07-12(b)(2)

In addition, it is well settled that the "bankruptcy court is undoubtedly the best qualified to interpret and enforce its own orders including those providing for discharge and injunction," In re Texaco, Inc., 182 B.R. 937, 947 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1995), and that a proceeding to enforce a Chapter 11 discharge is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(2) treats a proceeding to enforce a Chapter 11 discharge as a core proceeding.

U.S. Home Corp. v. Los Prados Community Assoc., Inc. (In re U.S.H. Corp.) · filed 2002-07-12(b)(2)

In addition, it is well settled that ... a proceeding to enforce a Chapter 11 discharge is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(2) treats proceedings to enforce and interpret a confirmed bankruptcy plan and its discharge injunction as core proceedings.

Qakfabco, Inc. v. American Standard, Inc. (In Re Kewanee Boiler Corp.) · filed 2003-08-29(b)(2)

The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A), (B), (I) and (O), and 1334, and 11 §§ U.S.C. 105 and 524(a). Core jurisdiction lies here to enforce and interpret the confirmed Plan and resulting statutory injunction barring collection of discharged claims.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) applies to Chapter 11 proceedings and does not affect a Chapter 7 bankruptcy court’s decision to lift a stay.

In Re Godt · filed 2002-09-10(b)(2)(B)

Section 157(b)(2)(B) applies to Chapter 11 proceedings. See Bevilacqua v. Bevilacqua, 208 B.R. 11, 16 (E.D.N.Y.1997). Here, the appellants filed a Chapter 7 petition. As such, Section 157(b)(2)(B) does not impact the Bankruptcy Court’s decision to lift the stay.

Section 157(b) permits bankruptcy courts to determine core proceedings but does not require them to retain jurisdiction over those proceedings after the underlying bankruptcy case is dismissed.

Southern · filed 2024-12-20(b)

See also 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) (indicating that bankruptcy courts “may,” not must, determine core proceedings).

Section 157(b)(1) does not authorize a bankruptcy court, after dismissing the bankruptcy case, to enjoin a related state foreclosure action affecting the debtor’s property.

In Re Garnett · filed 2003-10-21(b)(1)

The question, apparently a novel one, for this Court, is whether the additional Order effecting Appellant’s state court foreclosure action was “appropriate” within the meaning of § 157(b)(1). ... To append an order, in the nature of a prohibitory injunction, preventing Appellant from proceeding with a state court action on the verge of resolution, was manifestly inappropriate.

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to decide a core proceeding for damages from an automatic stay violation even after the underlying bankruptcy case is dismissed.

Johnson v. Smith · filed 2009-08-05(b)(1)

A § 362(k)(1) proceeding therefore is a core proceeding because it “derive[s] directly from the Bankruptcy Code and can be brought only in the context of a bankruptcy case.” ... Requiring the dismissal of a § 362(k)(1) proceeding simply because the underlying bankruptcy case has been dismissed would not make sense.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court with related-to jurisdiction to enter interlocutory orders without the parties’ consent.

Acevedo v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In re Acevedo) · filed 2012-08-07(c)(1)

Of course, an order denying summary judgment is not final and therefore as long as a bankruptcy court has related-to jurisdiction, it can enter interlocutory orders even without the consent of the parties.

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to enter a final order on a professional’s fee application that resolves a claim against the estate under the Bankruptcy Code.

In re Digerati Technologies, Inc. · filed 2015-01-12(b)(1)

Accordingly, because the dispute at bar involves resolution of a claim against the estate, and because the resolution of this claim dispute is not based solely on state common law, but rather is based upon a provision of the Bankruptcy Code, this Court has the constitutional authority to enter a final order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(a) and (b)(1).

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy judge to enter a final order on a dispute arising entirely under the Bankruptcy Code when the dispute falls within the public rights exception.

In re CTLI, LLC · filed 2015-08-13

The dispute at bar is not a counterclaim of the Debtor, nor does it arise out of state law. Rather, the dispute arises entirely out of § 1144, which prescribes the circumstances under which a bankruptcy court may revoke a confirmation order. State law has no equivalent to this provision; it is purely a creature of the Code. The dispute at bar both “flows from a federal statutory scheme” and is “completely dependent upon adjudication of a claim created by federal law,” as it concerns only the federal privilege of discharge in bankruptcy. Accordingly, this Court has the constitutional authority to enter a final order on the Motion.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to enter a final order on a motion to extend the automatic stay to a nondebtor because that matter can arise only in bankruptcy.

In re Divine Ripe, L.L.C. · filed 2015-09-23(b)(1)

The matter at bar arises from the Debt- or’s Motion to Extend The Automatic Stay to Jimenez, which is a matter that can only arise in bankruptcy. Thus, this Court finds that it has the constitutional authority to grant or deny the Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334(b).

Section 157(b) authorizes bankruptcy courts to issue final orders on proofs of claim as core claims allowance proceedings.

Green v. Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing · filed 2020-06-25(b)

Bankruptcy courts are authorized by statute to “hear and determine . . . core proceedings,” which include “allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). ... Consequently, the Court concludes that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction over the Proof of Claim and had the authority to issue a final order on it.

Section 157(b)(2) treats turnover, automatic-stay, and attorney-fee claims as core proceedings over which a bankruptcy court can retain jurisdiction after the underlying case is dismissed.

Juannelious Murray, Sr. v. Safir Law P.L.C. · filed 2021-09-03(b)(2)

Each of count two’s claims is a “core proceeding.” ... Accordingly, even though the underlying bankruptcy case had been dismissed, the bankruptcy court still retained subject-matter jurisdiction to decide them.

Section 157 allows a bankruptcy court to enter a final order on a preference claim even if the defendant has not filed a claim.

John J Petti and Denise A Petti - Adversary Proceeding · filed 2021-11-02(b)(1)

Further, this court has jurisdiction to enter final orders on preference claims, regardless of whether a claim was filed by the defendant, as the proceeding “stems from the bankruptcy itself.” KAI Liquidation Trust v. Wisenbaker Builder Servs., Inc. (In re Kimball Hill, Inc.), 480 B.R. 894, 905 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2012) (citing Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462, 498-99 (2011)).

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to enter an order on a motion to dismiss even when the proceeding is non-core or the court lacks authority to enter a final order on the merits.

Neiger v. Cipla USA Inc. · filed 2023-01-30

This Court has jurisdiction to decide the Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157 and § 1334(b). The Bankruptcy Court also has the power to enter an order on a motion to dismiss even if the matter is non-core or the Court has no authority to enter a final order on the merits.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to enter preliminary orders in a non-core proceeding without deciding whether it may enter a final judgment.

Skajem · filed 2025-12-09

Even if the Court does not have constitutional authority to enter a final order, the Court does have the authority to enter orders on preliminary matters to the extent they do not constitute a final adjudication.

Section 157(c) limits a bankruptcy judge’s authority to enter final judgment on related proceedings without the parties’ consent, but permits orders on preliminary matters that do not finally decide the claims.

In re ACJK, Inc. · filed 2026-02-23(c)

Even so, this Court has authority to enter orders on preliminary matters to the extent they do not constitute a final adjudication on the merits of underlying causes of action over which the Court does not have constitutional authority to enter a final order.

Section 157(a) does not authorize a bankruptcy court to exercise ancillary jurisdiction beyond the three types of bankruptcy proceedings referred to it by the district court.

Banc of America Investment Services, Inc. v. Fraiberg (In Re Conseco, Inc.) · filed 2004-01-16(a)

But the question here is whether a bankruptcy court can assert ancillary jurisdiction, and the court concludes that the answer is no. ... The bankruptcy court has no grant of authority from the district court beyond the three types of jurisdiction identified in § 157(a).

Section 157(b)(2)(O) treats tax refund claims as non-core proceedings even when the IRS asserts an offset.

Dunmore v. United States of America, Internal Revenue Service · filed 2004-01-29(b)(2)(O)

Our approach treats all tax refund claims, whether the IRS alleges an offset or not, as non-core proceedings entitled to an Article III adjudicator.

Section 157 treats a proceeding to determine whether advances to a debtor are loans owed to the claimant as a core proceeding.

Phillips v. Congelton, L.L.C. (In Re White Mountain Mining Co.) · filed 2005-04-01(b)(2)(B)

The adversary proceeding was a core proceeding because Phillips’s complaint against White Mountain (the debtor) sought a determination that the advances of $10.6 million from Phillips to White Mountain were loans "due and owing" from White Mountain to Phillips.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats estimation of an unliquidated claim for voting and plan confirmation as a core matter, but estimation for distribution as noncore.

In re North American Health Care, Inc. · filed 2016-02-05(b)(2)(B)

Title 28 of the United States Code draws a critically important distinction between the estimation of an unliquidated claim for the purpose of confirming a plan (which includes estimating for voting because plan confirmation usually requires voting by creditors) and estimation for purposes of distribution. The former is a core matter; the latter is noncore. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats estimation of claims for distribution as a core bankruptcy matter when the claims are not for personal injury or wrongful death.

In Re Wallace's Bookstores, Inc. · filed 2004-07-23(b)(2)(B)

Moreover, Congress has defined “core proceeding” to include the estimation of claims for purposes of plan confirmation “but not the liquidation or estimation of contingent or unliquidated personal injury tort or wrongful death claims against the estate for purposes of distribution in a case under title 11.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B). The implication from this language is that the estimation of claims other than personal injury and wrongful death claims for purposes of distribution does constitute a core bankruptcy matter and must, therefore, be within the scope of § 502(c).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) authorizes a bankruptcy court to estimate an administrative expense claim for purposes of considering confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan.

In Re Tristar Fire Protection, Inc. · filed 2012-03-08(b)(2)(B)

However, the Court holds that it is authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), without any need to resort to §§ 105 and 502(c) of the Bankruptcy Code, to make an estimate of the likelihood of Local 704’s administrative expense claim for purposes of considering its objection to the Debtor’s plan.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) makes allowance of proofs of claim a core proceeding that a bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

Rinaldi v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. · filed 2013-02-22(b)(2)(B)

Allowance of proofs of claim falls within the core matters that the bankruptcy court may hear and determine under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats estimation of claims for plan confirmation as a core proceeding unless the estimation actually determines distributions on individual claims.

Future Claimants' Representative v. Boy Scouts of America and Delaware BSA, LLC · filed 2021-10-13(b)(2)(B)

Although “the liquidation or estimation of contingent or unliquidated personal injury tort or wrongful death claims against the estate for purposes of distribution” are non-core proceedings, “for purposes of distribution” means that the proceeding must actually determine distributions on the claim.

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

SNYDER v. BIROS · filed 2024-10-11(b)(2)(B)

The filing of a proof of claim initiates the claims allowance process under § 157(b)(2)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code and is a core proceeding which authorizes the Bankruptcy Court to enter final judgment on the claim.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to determine a motion to interpret a sale order entered in a core proceeding.

In re Hester · filed 2016-07-11(b)(2)(M)

As the Sale Order was entered in a non-Sierra core proceeding, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction not only to consider but also to determine the Motions. 11 U.S.C. § 363; 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(M).

Section 157(b)(2)(N) treats a bankruptcy sale order as a core proceeding; a request to construe and enforce that order is also core even when the debtor is not a party.

In Re Eveleth Mines, Inc. · filed 2004-07-30(b)(2)(N)

On its face, the statute defines the Asset Sale Order as a core proceeding in itself. Perforce, the Debtor’s motion that led to the entry of that order had been a core proceeding. A request for a construction and an enforcement of the order is a core proceeding by derivation — even if the debtor is not a party-movant or-respondent to the request.

Section 157 treats a suit requiring a bankruptcy court to interpret and give effect to its prior sale orders as a core proceeding.

In Re: Allegheny Health, Education And Research Foundation · filed 2004-09-20(b)

However, in order to clarify procedure on remand, we hold that the bankruptcy court correctly determined that the suit was a core proceeding because it required the court to interpret and give effect to its previous sale orders.

Section 157(b)(2)(N) permits a bankruptcy court to interpret and enforce its sale order, but does not extend to deciding whether a third party held an interest outside the estate that survived the sale.

Digeo, Inc. v. Hsiao-Shih Chang (In Re IPDN Corp.) · filed 2006-09-28(b)(2)(N)

Subsection (N) also does not apply. Under § 157(b)(2)(N), the court has jurisdiction not only to enter a sale order but also to interpret and enforce that order, even when the sale order dispute is between nondebtor parties and the debtor is not affected by the outcome. ... Digeo asks for a declaration from the Court that interprets the Sale Order to mean that no third-party interest, such as the one asserted by Edward Chang under patent law, survived the sale. Such a finding would be not only beyond interpretation and enforcement of the Sale Order, but would be beyond the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court.

Section 157 treats the sale of a debtor’s assets as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Cargill, Inc. v. Man Financial, Inc. (In Re Refco, Inc.) · filed 2006-10-19(b)(2)(N)

The sale of a debtor’s assets is a specifically-enumerated core proceeding. ... Hence, the New York Bankruptcy Court’s Man Sale Order, the Refeo LLC Sale Order, and the Order overruling Cargill’s objection to the transfer, in which the Court found that Exclusivity Agreement was validly assigned to Man, are all core.

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to interpret and enforce a sale order after plan confirmation, even in a dispute between non-debtors.

In Re Portrait Corp. of America, Inc. · filed 2009-07-07(b)(1)

This Court has core jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) to interpret and enforce the Sale Order. ... It does not matter that the dispute is now between two non-debtors, CPI and PMP, or that the Debtors’ chapter 11 plan has been confirmed.

Section 157(b)(2)(N) treats approval of a bankruptcy asset sale as a core proceeding and permits the bankruptcy court to issue provisions effectuating the sale.

Campbell v. Motors Liquidation Co. · filed 2010-04-13(b)(2)(N)

The injunctive provisions in the Sale Order enjoining successor liability would thus be within the Bankruptcy Court’s core jurisdiction to authorize and effectuate the 363 Transaction “free and clear” of Appellants’ claims under section 363(f).

Section 157(b)(2)(N) treats interpretation and enforcement of an order approving an asset sale as a core proceeding, including a dispute over setoff and recoupment against sold receivables.

HHI FormTech, LLC v. Magna Powertrain USA, Inc. (In Re FormTech Industries, LLC) · filed 2010-11-17(b)(2)(N)

The Court finds that the determination of whether Magna can assert setoff and recoupment rights is a core proceeding because it requires the interpretation and enforcement of the Court’s Sale Order.

Section 157(b)(2)(N) classifies orders approving the sale of property as core matters.

Falck Properties, LLC v. Parkvale Financial Corp. (In Re Brownsville Property Corp.) · filed 2012-04-30(b)(2)(N)

No one disputes that the Court had the jurisdiction to enter the Prior Orders concerning sale of the Property, and the Court itself finds that such Prior Orders represented core matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(N) and perhaps other subsections of 157(b)(2) as well.

Section 157(b)(2)(N) treats a dispute over a bankruptcy sale order as a core proceeding when the dispute concerns property sold by the estate and the opposing party filed a proof of claim.

Angel v. Tauch (In re Chiron Equities, LLC) · filed 2016-07-01(b)(2)(N)

Here, there is no question that the Sale Order constitutes an “order approving the sale of property [i.e., the Sale Order Claims],” and there is also no question that KRD has filed a proof of claim in this case, [Finding of Fact No. 22]. Therefore, the dispute relating to the State Court Claims is a “core” matter.

Section 157(b)(2)(N) treats orders approving sales of property as core proceedings that bankruptcy courts may hear and determine.

Layng v. Rael · filed 2018-12-07(b)(2)(N)

And, because entry of a sale order is a core proceeding, the bankruptcy court was statutorily within its jurisdiction to enter an order—again, at the Raels’ request—authorizing them to sell the property.

Section 157(b)(2)(D) treats a dispute over the scope of a bankruptcy court’s order approving new credit as a core proceeding.

Somerset Regional Water v. · filed 2020-02-11(b)(2)(D)

Section 157(b)(2)(D) confers jurisdiction over “orders in re- spect to obtaining credit.” That is the issue here: the reach and scope of paragraph 6 of the Loan Order, a court-approved agreement that gave the Debtor a new loan.

Section 157 treats motions to approve a sale of property and to enforce the sale order as core proceedings.

Kimmel's Coal and Packaging, Inc. · filed 2021-09-28(b)(2)(N)

Both a motion to approve a sale of property and a motion seeking to enforce that order are proceedings "arising under title 11" and are therefore core proceedings.

Section 157(a) covers a bankruptcy court’s authority to interpret and enforce its prior sale order.

In Re: Motors Liquidation Company · filed 2022-03-31(a)

The Underlying Order merely “enforces a prior sale order,” which is an action within the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction.

Section 157(b)(2)(N) treats a motion to enforce a bankruptcy sale order as a core proceeding.

Lightning Technologies, Inc. · filed 2022-07-15(b)(2)(N)

The Court finds and concludes that it has subject matter jurisdiction to grant the relief described in this Order, below, on the Motion, and that the Motion is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b) gives a bankruptcy court core jurisdiction to interpret and enforce its sale order.

Old Market Group Holdings Corp. · filed 2022-09-21(b)

This Court has core jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) to interpret and enforce the Sale Order.

Section 157 treats plan confirmations and orders approving property sales as core proceedings; a bankruptcy court retains jurisdiction to interpret and enforce those orders after confirmation and sale.

In Re: TE Holdcorp, LLC v. · filed 2023-01-26(b)(2)(L), (N)

A core bankruptcy proceeding includes the “confirmations of plans” and “orders approving the sale of property.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(L), (N). The post-Sale and post-Confirmation posture of the enforcement motion did not divest the Bankruptcy Court of jurisdiction because it had jurisdiction to interpret and enforce those prior orders.

Section 157(b)(2)(N) treats interpretation and enforcement of a bankruptcy sale order as a core proceeding.

Business Aircraft Leasing, Inc. v. Ultra Energy Resources, LLC · filed 2025-03-26(b)(2)(N)

Interpretation and enforcement of a sale order is a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(N) (orders approving the sale of property). Ultra’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is denied.

Section 157(b)(2)(N) treats an order approving the sale of estate property as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

In re RunItOneTime LLC · filed 2026-01-26(b)(2)(N)

The Sale Order is a core matter. ... Further, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) provides a list of core proceedings and an “order approving the sale of property” is part of that list.

Section 157(c)(1) bars a bankruptcy court from entering a final order or judgment in a related noncore proceeding, but permits a preliminary injunction.

Specialty Associates, Inc. v. Werowinski (In Re CEI Roofing, Inc.) · filed 2004-08-02(c)(1)

Based on the principles explained by the In re Zale and Celotex courts, this Court finds that it has the power to enter a binding preliminary injunction in the present proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) gives a bankruptcy judge core jurisdiction to issue an injunction in an otherwise related proceeding to administer that proceeding and prevent irreparable harm.

Stirneman v. Stirneman (In Re Stirneman) · filed 2009-11-04(b)(2)(A)

A bankruptcy judge has core jurisdiction pursuant to § 157(b)(2)(A) to issue an injunction, even in an otherwise related jurisdictional proceeding, in furtherance of administering that proceeding and preventing irreparable harm.

Section 157(b)(2)(L) treats plan confirmation as a core proceeding that a bankruptcy court may hear and determine on a final basis.

Lorraine Mae Hyde · filed 2022-06-06(b)(2)(L)

The matters presently before the Court constitute core proceedings that this Court may hear and determine on a final basis under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(L).

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

O'Connor v. Burg · filed 2022-06-09(b)(2)(I)

This court determines that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I), this Adversary Proceeding contains core matters, as it primarily involves proceedings to determine dischargeability of a particular debt.

Section 157(b)(2) classifies an adversary proceeding that potentially implicates the automatic stay as a core proceeding.

Culberson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC dba Mr. Cooper · filed 2022-06-10(b)(2)(A), (B), and (G)

This adversary proceeding is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A), (B), and (G) because the motion potentially implicates the automatic stay that had been in place.

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

Securities Investor Protection Corporation v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, LLC. et a · filed 2022-06-14(b)(2)

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

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

Hali Maeann Suazo · filed 2022-06-17(b)(2)(A)

This controversy is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) since it concerns administration of the bankruptcy estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) classifies proceedings to determine whether a debt is dischargeable as core proceedings.

Coffman v. Deuel · filed 2022-06-22(b)(2)(I)

The Court has the authority to enter a final judgment in this adversary proceeding because it constitutes a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I).

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

Travis L Murphy · filed 2022-06-23(b)(2)(A)

A motion to dismiss a bankruptcy case is a core proceeding.

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

Chowdary v. Ozcelebi · filed 2022-06-28(b)(2)(I)

This Court determines that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I) this adversary pro- ceeding involves primarily core matters as it “concern[s] determinations as to the dischargeability of particular debts.”

Section 157(b)(2) covers a motion to approve a bankruptcy settlement as a core proceeding when the settlement parties agree to submit to the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction.

LeClairRyan PLLC · filed 2022-06-28(b)(2)

As such, the Motion is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(2) classifies proceedings concerning estate administration and recovery of preferential or fraudulent transfers as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Irving H. Picard, Trustee for the Liquidation of B v. Lloyds TSB Bank PLC · filed 2022-06-30(b)(2)

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

Section 157(b)(2) treats a trustee’s adversary proceeding to recover transferred customer property as a core proceeding.

Securities Investor Protection Corporation v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, LLC. et a · filed 2022-06-30(b)(2)

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

Fraudulent transfer avoidance proceedings are core proceedings that a bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

Cafferty v. Blackmar · filed 2022-07-01(b)(2)(H)

Proceedings to avoid fraudulent transfers are core proceedings that the court may hear and determine. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H).

Section 157(b) treats a dispute over the relative priority of creditors’ claims against a bankruptcy estate as a core matter.

Bayside Capital, Inc. and Cerberus Capital Managem v. TPC Group Inc. · filed 2022-07-06(b)

This action, which relates to the relative priority of various creditors’ claims against the bankruptcy estate, is a core matter under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157(b)(2) treats an adversary proceeding to determine dischargeability as a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy court may enter a final order.

The Estates of Robert Moss and Brenda Moss by Dana v. Dorand · filed 2022-07-06(b)(2)

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2), and the court has authority to enter a final order.

Section 157(b)(2) covers a debtor’s request to restrain the sale of asserted bankruptcy estate property as a core proceeding.

Yukos Oil Co. v. Russian Federation (In Re Yukos Oil Co.) · filed 2004-12-16(b)(2)

The relief requested in the instant adversary proceeding and in the instant motion are core proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A), 157(b)(2)(E), 157(b)(2)(E), and 157(b)(2)(0). The court concludes that it has jurisdiction to hear and determine the instant adversary proceeding, and the instant motion.