28 U.S.C. § 157

Section 157(b)(2)(C) does not prevent a bankruptcy court from entering a final order when the proceeding does not involve the state-law counterclaim addressed in Stern.

Pearl Resources LLC v. Allied OFS LLC · filed 2022-09-26(b)(2)(C)

Section 157(b)(2)(C) is not implicated in this proceeding, so this Court concludes that the narrow limitation imposed by Stern does not prohibit this Court from entering a final order here.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment in a statutorily core proceeding when constitutional requirements are met.

Tsai v. Chen-Ky · filed 2022-10-14(b)(2)(A), (B), and (I)

The Court has the authority to enter a final judgment in this adversary proceeding because it constitutes a statutorily core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (B), and (I), and meets all constitutional standards for the proper exercise of full judicial power by this Court.

Section 157(b) authorizes bankruptcy courts to enter final judgments in core proceedings.

Highland Capital Management, L.P. - Adversary Proceeding · filed 2023-06-25(b)

Bankruptcy subject matter jurisdiction exists over the claims in this Lawsuit Pertaining to HarbourVest Bankruptcy Settlement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(b) and 157. ... The bankruptcy courts, in turn, are delegated authority to exercise that jurisdiction from the district courts, under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a). ... Moreover, the Action involves “core” matters over which a bankruptcy court may generally enter final judgments. ... To be clear, even though most of the Counts in this Action (Count I, breach of fiduciary duty; Count 2, breach of contract; Count 3, negligence; and Count 5, tortious interference) sound like mostly state law claims, they are all claims being asserted against Highland relating to its actions during its Chapter 11 bankruptcy case. ... Therefore, they are “core” in nature.

Section 157(b) authorizes bankruptcy courts to enter final judgments in core proceedings, including matters concerning estate administration and dischargeability determinations.

Hemp Recovery Company, LLC v. Boyd · filed 2023-07-10(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(B), (b)(2)(I), and (b)(2)(O)

The Court has jurisdiction to enter final judgment in this nondischargeability dispute pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) and 28 U.S.C § 157(b). This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) (matters concerning administration of the bankruptcy estate); § 157(b)(2)(B) (allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate); (b)(2)(I) (determinations as to the dischargeability of particular debts); and § (b)(2)(O) (other proceedings affecting the liquidation of assets of the estate.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to hear and determine core proceedings, including claim allowance and lien validity.

Springer Construction LLC · filed 2023-07-24(b)(1), (b)(2)(B), (b)(2)(K)

Because the motion seeks allowance of a claim against the estate and determination of the validity of liens, it is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) and (K). I thus may hear and determine the motion and enter an appropriate order.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to issue final orders in a fraudulent conveyance action when the parties consent.

In Re: Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC · filed 2023-07-25(b)(2)(H)

A bankruptcy court has authority to issue final orders in an action to avoid fraudulent conveyances under SIPA if the parties consent. See In re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC, 612 B.R. 257, 263 (S.D.N.Y. 2020); 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H).

Section 157(c)(2) authorizes a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment in a non-core proceeding with the parties’ consent.

In re: Suzanne Marie Takowsky · filed 2014-11-12(c)(2)

Given Del Toro’s consent, 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2) authorized the bankruptcy court to enter final judgment on the wrongful foreclosure claim.

Objections to a proceeding’s core status or the bankruptcy court’s authority to enter a final decision under § 157(b)(1) are forfeited if not raised.

In re: Guy R. Eugenio and Lynn L. Mainaaupo-Eugenio · filed 2015-02-05(b)(1)

The Eugenios never challenged the alleged “core” nature of the proceeding, nor did ... they ever dispute the bankruptcy court’s authority under ... 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) to render a final decision. As a result, the Eugenios forfeited these issues.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to enter final judgments in non-core proceedings with the parties’ consent.

Seven Stars on the Hudson Corp v. MDG Powerline Holdings, LLC · filed 2022-01-28(c)

Accordingly, based upon the consent of all parties, this Court may enter final orders and judgments on all claims in this adversary proceeding.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment in a core proceeding.

Eliason v. Bank of North Dakota · filed 2023-08-08(b)(1)

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (J). The Court may enter final judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

Section 157(b)(2) identifies core bankruptcy proceedings in which a bankruptcy court may enter final judgment when constitutional requirements are met.

Kerns v. First State Bank of Ben Wheeler · filed 2023-08-24(b)(2)

The Court has the authority to enter a final judgment in this adversary proceeding because it constitutes a statutorily core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (B), (G), and (O), and meets all constitutional standards for the proper exercise of full judicial power by this Court.

Section 157(c)(1) governs non-core proceedings, and section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to enter a final judgment with the parties’ consent.

Frank and Emma Persyn Family Limited Partnership v. Chicago Title of Texas LLC · filed 2024-03-01(c)(1), (c)(2)

This is a non-core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). Both parties have consented to the entry of a final order and final judgment by the Court pursuant to § 157(c)(2).

Section 157(b) permits a bankruptcy judge to enter final judgment in a referred core proceeding, including matters concerning estate administration and claims allowance.

Amborn, Trustee v. Szanto · filed 2025-05-05(b)

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (B) (matters concerning administration of the estate and allowance of claims against the estate). Thus, the court has statutory authority to enter final judgment in this proceeding.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy judge to enter final orders and judgment in a non-core proceeding when the parties consent.

Escalante-Sostre v. Lopez-Gutierrez · filed 2025-05-09(c)(2)

This is a non-core proceeding, but Plaintiffs, Defendants, and the Intervenors have consented to the entry of final orders and a judgment by this Court.

Section 157(b)(2) authorizes a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment in a core proceeding when constitutional requirements are met.

Simmons v. Simmons · filed 2025-06-09(b)(2)(A), (I), and (J)

This Court has the authority to enter a final judgment on all issues raised in this adversary proceeding because it constitutes a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (I), and (J), and meets all constitutional standards for proper exercise of full judicial power by this Court.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to render a final decision when the parties consent.

Music Mix Mobile, LLC v. Newman (In re Stage Presence Inc.) · filed 2016-09-28(c)(2)

These consents are sufficient as a statutory and constitutional matter to permit this Court to render a final decision.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear and determine a non-core proceeding with the parties’ consent if subject-matter jurisdiction exists.

Lopez v. Hernandez (In re Hernandez) · filed 2017-01-20(c)(2)

With consent, the Court may hear and determine non-core proceedings if there is jurisdiction to do so.

Section 157(c)(1) calls for proposed findings in non-core proceedings, but a party’s implicit consent to bankruptcy court adjudication permits the court’s decision to be treated as a final order.

ICP Strategic Credit Income Fund, Ltd. v. DLA Piper L.L.P. (In re ICP Strategic Credit Income Fund, Ltd.) · filed 2017-05-09(c)(1)

This invocation of the Bankruptcy Court’s authority to dismiss the case was a manifestation of implicit consent to the Bankruptcy Court’s jurisdiction. ... Therefore, the Bankruptcy Court’s decision should be treated as a final order rather than proposed findings.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to issue a final ruling in a non-core proceeding related to bankruptcy when the parties consent.

Roadcap v. Harrisonburg Printing & Graphics, LLC (In re Roadcap) · filed 2018-08-23(c)(2)

For these reasons, this Court finds to the extent the action before the Court is non-core but related to the bankruptcy, the parties have consented to permit this Court to issue a final ruling on this motion.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to enter a final judgment when the parties knowingly and voluntarily consent.

Schubiner v. Zolman (In re Schubiner) · filed 2018-09-18(c)(2)

Given that consent, this bankruptcy court has both statutory and constitutional authority to enter a final judgment on Plaintiff's claims.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment in a noncore proceeding when the parties consent.

Homaidan v. SLM Corp. (In re Homaidan) · filed 2019-01-31(c)(2)

In addition, this Court may adjudicate these claims to final judgment to the extent that they are core proceedings pursuant to Judiciary Code Section 157(b), and to the extent that they are not core proceedings, pursuant to Judiciary Code Section 157(c) because the parties have stated their consent to this Court entering a final judgment.

Section 157 permits parties to consent implicitly to a bankruptcy court’s entry of a final order; express consent is not required.

All-Tex Staffing & Pers., Inc. v. Sarah Romo Torres (In re All-Tex Staffing & Pers., Inc.) · filed 2019-04-08(c)(2)

In the alternative, this Court has the constitutional authority to enter a final order on the Motion because the parties have impliedly consented to adjudication of this matter by this Court. ... If these circumstances do not constitute implied consent, nothing does.

When the parties expressly consent to a bankruptcy court entering final judgment, the court need not determine whether their claims are core or non-core.

Sicherman v. World Auto Network Inc. · filed 2019-09-27(c)

Both the trustee and World Auto Network Inc. (“World Auto”) have expressly consented to this Court entering final judgment on the trustee’s claims in this proceeding. Therefore, the Court need not determine whether the claims are core or non-core.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment in a non-core proceeding when the parties consent.

Rowena V. Wagner · filed 2020-01-16(c)(2)

In any event, even if the matter is deemed non-core, the Parties appear to have nonetheless consented to the entry of a final judgment by this Court as authorized by 11 U.S.C. §157(c)(2). ... The Court therefore finds that it has the jurisdiction to enter ... a final judgment in this matter.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to enter a final decision on referred claims when the parties consent.

Unknown Case Title - Adversary Proceeding · filed 2020-05-04

In light of the parties’ consent this Court has the power to enter a final decision.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment in an adversary proceeding when the parties consent to its deciding the matter.

Coppola v. WELLS FARGO BANK · filed 2020-09-30

Additionally, both the Debtor and Wells Fargo consented to the Court deciding this issue. Based on that express and implicit consent, the Court agrees that it has core jurisdiction to enter a Final Judgment in this matter.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to enter a final judgment on non-core claims when the parties consent and knowingly and voluntarily waive adjudication by an Article III court.

Brown v. Douglas · filed 2021-07-21(c)(2)

Based upon the parties’ consent to the Court’s entry of a final order or judgment on all non-core claims and knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to the adjudication of such claims by an Article III court, the Court may also enter a final order or judgment on all non-core claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2).

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to make a final adjudication in a noncore proceeding when the parties consent.

Covington Lodging, Inc. v. Western World Insurance Group, Inc. · filed 2021-09-15(c)(2)

Although this case is not a core matter under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2), the parties have agreed the Court has jurisdiction to hear this case and authority to make a final adjudication. ... Because the parties have expressly and implicitly consented to the Court’s final adjudication of this matter, the Court’s exercise of such authority is appropriate.

Section 157 permits consent to a bankruptcy court’s entry of final judgment to be implied from a party’s informed conduct.

The Strauss Company, Inc. v. Jarrett Builders, Inc. · filed 2021-09-27(c)(2)

The Court thus finds implicit consent to final judgment from Jarrett Builders and will proceed without having to propose findings of fact and conclusions of law to the District Court.

Section 157 permits consent to final adjudication by a bankruptcy court to be implied from a party’s conduct, including a request for final relief.

Jordan v. Pritchard · filed 2021-09-30(c)(2)

Under the circumstances of this proceeding, the Court finds implicit consent to final judgment from the Jordans in addition to the express statements in the complaint.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to enter a final order in a non-core proceeding with the parties’ consent.

Russell Marine Towing, LLC v. Chester J. Marine, LLC · filed 2021-10-13(c)(2)

To the extent that these consolidated matters before this Court implicate non-core claims, the parties consented to the entry of a final order by this Court resolving all of the parties’ claims. ... Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to grant the relief provided for herein on a final basis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334 and 157(c)(2).

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment on a non-core claim when a defendant’s failure to litigate after receiving a summons constitutes implied consent.

Moden v. Ditech Financial, LLC · filed 2021-11-12(c)(2)

This Court likewise concludes that NewRez’s failure to litigate after receipt of the summons amounts to NewRez’s implied consent to the Bankruptcy Court’s final adjudication of all claims against it.

Section 157(c)(2) allows a bankruptcy judge to decide a referred proceeding and enter final judgment when all parties consent.

O'FLYNN v. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION · filed 2022-05-18(c)(2)

Because the parties now consent to the Bankruptcy Court deciding the Motions to Dismiss pending in the Adversary Proceeding, Judge Moberly may decide the pending Motions to Dismiss and enter final judgment, if warranted, based on that consent.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to enter a final judgment on a non-core claim when the parties consent.

Wolverine Energy and Infrastructure Inc. v. ENT Capital Corp. · filed 2022-08-09(c)(2)

However, a bankruptcy court may enter a final judgment on a statutorily non-core claim if the parties consent. ... The parties have consented to this Court entering a final judgment: ... Because the parties consented to the Court entering a final judgment, the Court need not determine whether it has statutory or constitutional authority to enter a final judgment.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment on a non-core claim when the parties consent, including through informed conduct.

Ward v. Cross Keys Bank · filed 2022-09-07(c)(2)

Consent can ameliorate both statutory-jurisdiction defects and constitutional defects. See Sharif, 575 U.S. at 671 (majority) (statutory defects); id. at 679 (constitutional defects); see also 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2) (allowing bankruptcy courts to enter final judgments on non-core claims by consent). ... We conclude the district court’s consent determination was not clear error.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to enter final orders and judgments in a noncore proceeding when the parties consent, including by implied consent.

ReMa Energy LLC v. Texas Permian Oil & Gas Company, Inc. · filed 2023-02-27(c)(2)

The claims against Texas Permian are at least related to the Debtor’s bankruptcy case under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), and this bankruptcy court may enter final orders and judgments in this case under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2) because the parties have consented, explicitly or implicitly.

Section 157(c)(2) permits implied consent to a bankruptcy judge’s entry of final judgment; sandbagging can establish consent but is not required.

Hasse v. Rainsdon (In Re Pringle) · filed 2013-07-02(c)(2)

Upon examination of Bellingham and Stern, and their treatment of “sandbagging,” we hold that while a showing of “sandbagging” may be sufficient for consent, it is not necessary. There are other ways in which the parties may convey their consent, including those present here.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to enter a final order in a non-core proceeding when the parties consent, and that consent may be implied from a failure to challenge the court’s authority.

Buckskin Realty, Inc. v. Greenberg · filed 2019-10-07(c)(2)

Importantly, however, the parties can confer plenary jurisdiction on the bankruptcy court by consent. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2). That consent need not be express. ... Buckskin never challenged the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction in the bankruptcy proceeding. It has, therefore, clearly waived its challenge.

Consent to a bankruptcy judge’s entry of final orders on non-core claims does not supply jurisdiction when those claims are not related to the bankruptcy cases.

O'Flynn v. PHH Mortage Corporation · filed 2023-09-28(c)(2)

In this Court’s view, the parties’ consent to this Court’s entry of final orders over “non-core” claims for purposes of the motions to dismiss does not resolve the jurisdiction issue. The so-called “non-core” claims are not “related to” the bankruptcy cases.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to enter a final order with the parties’ consent; an objection conditioned on a finding that claims are non-core does not withhold consent when that finding never occurs.

In re: Alicia Marie Richards · filed 2023-12-11(c)(2)

Based on the parties’ consent, the bankruptcy court properly treated the claims as core and entered a final order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2).

Section 157(c) permits a bankruptcy judge to enter final orders in related proceedings when the parties knowingly and voluntarily consent; consent may be implied from their conduct after they learn of the right to refuse.

ACJK, Inc. v. Small Business Financial Solutions, LLC · filed 2025-09-08(c)

Consent may be implied, requiring only that “the litigant or counsel was made aware of the need for consent and the right to refuse it, and still voluntarily appeared to try the case” before the bankruptcy judge. ... Both parties were “made aware of the need for consent and the right to refuse it,” and proceeded in silence; they have impliedly consented to entry of final orders by this Court.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to decide a non-core proceeding on a final basis when all parties consent.

Mondara Condominiums Association, Inc. v. Stillwater Abbott Development · filed 2025-12-16(c)(2)

... all parties consent to this Court hearing this matter and determining the issues on a final basis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2).

Section 157(c)(2) allows a bankruptcy court to decide a noncore proceeding on a final basis when all parties consent.

Mondara Condominiums Association, Inc. v. Stillwater Abbott Development · filed 2026-05-08(c)(2)

Although the Construction Defect Claims8 do not constitute core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b), the bankruptcy court has authority to adjudicate this matter ... all parties consented to this Court hearing this matter and determining the issues on a final basis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats a turnover proceeding as core when a third party’s claim to the property does not present a legitimate dispute over title.

Reed v. Nathan · filed 2016-10-11(b)(2)(E)

A dispute that is not legitimate does not create sufficient doubt as to whether the assets in question are “property of the estate” so as to remove a turnover action from § 157(b)(2)(E).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats turnover actions as core bankruptcy proceedings.

First Korean Christian Church of San Jose v. Dong Wuk Kim (In re First Korean Christian Church of San Jose) · filed 2017-02-21(b)(2)(E)

In addition, turnover actions are core pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E). Here, Debtor is seeking a determination that the Net Funds are property of the estate which must be turned over to it. This court has core jurisdiction to resolve the disputed claims to the Net Funds.

Section 157(b)(2) treats collection of a matured receivable through turnover as a core proceeding when there is no bona fide dispute over liability.

Goldsmith v. Macri Associates, Inc. (In re E & G Waterworks, LLC) · filed 2017-07-27(b)(2)

Accordingly, the Court rules that the Trustee’s collection of the Receivable is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) ; see also Payton, 399 B.R. at 363.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats orders to turn over estate property as core proceedings in which a bankruptcy judge may enter final judgment when turnover is properly invoked and no serious defenses exist.

Geron v. Peebler (In re Pali Holdings, Inc.) · filed 2013-03-25(b)(2)(E)

Where, as here, there are no serious defenses to the estate’s section 542 turnover rights, a bankruptcy judge can exercise the bankruptcy court’s in rem jurisdiction to issue a final judgment for the turnover of the estate’s property, or to monetize it.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) permits accounting and conversion claims to be treated as core proceedings when they have the same gravamen as a turnover claim.

Hoffman v. Sonoma Specialty Hospital, LLC · filed 2021-10-22(b)(2)(E)

The court finds that the gravamen of the accounting and conversion claims is the same as the turnover claim such that they may also be construed as core under §157(b)(2)(E).

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment in a noncore proceeding when the parties consent.

Lassman v. DeVoe · filed 2022-02-22(c)(2)

The counts in this adversary proceeding, having arisen before the commencement of this bankruptcy case and entirely under state law, are not core proceedings. The parties have consented to this court’s entry of final judgment. By virtue of that consent and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2), this court may enter final judgment in this adversary proceeding.

Section 157(c) permits a bankruptcy court to enter a final judgment in a non-core proceeding with all parties’ consent and otherwise requires proposed findings for de novo district court review.

Ralph Roberts Realty, LLC v. Savoy (In re Ralph Roberts Realty, LLC) · filed 2016-10-14(c)(1), (c)(2)

Thus, with respect to claims of the type described in both item (2) and item (3) above (Stem-core claims and statutory non-core claims), the following procedures apply, under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c): if all parties consent to the bankruptcy court entering a final judgment on such claims, under § 157(c)(2), then the bankruptcy court may do so; otherwise, the bankruptcy court must follow the procedure of § 157(c)(1), and submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court, for the de novo review described in § 157(c)(1).

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

LM Waste Service Corp. v. Municipio De Juana Diaz (In re LM Waste Service Corp.) · filed 2016-12-15(c)(1)

Because this is a non-core proceeding and the parties have not consented to the entry of a final judgment in bankruptcy court, this court is limited herein to submitting proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear a related non-core proceeding and enter interlocutory orders in it.

Citibank, N.A. v. Bombshell Taxi LLC (In re Hypnotic Taxi LLC) · filed 2017-04-10(c)(1)

Although bankruptcy courts may not enter final orders in non-core proceedings absent consent of the parties, bankruptcy courts may enter interlocutory orders in non-core proceedings.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to enter final judgments in non-core proceedings only with the parties’ consent and otherwise requires proposed findings for district court review.

Lain v. Watt (In re Dune Energy, Inc.) · filed 2017-08-24(c)(1)-(2)

On the other hand, a bankruptcy court’s authority to enter a final judgment and final orders in a civil proceeding depends upon the category of the civil proceeding. Generally, a bankruptcy court has authority to enter a final judgment and final orders in a “core” proceeding (i.e., a civil proceeding that either “arises under” the Bankruptcy Code or “arises in” a bankruptcy case). See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1)—(2). Conversely, in a . “non-core” proceeding (i.e., a civil proceeding that only “relates to” a bankruptcy case), a bankruptcy court only has authority to enter a final judgment and final orders with the consent of the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2). Absent consent in a “non-core” proceeding, a bankruptcy court can hear the civil proceeding but must submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court for de novo review and rendition of a final judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1); see generally Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1932, 1940, 191 L.Ed.2d 911 (2015); Exec. Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2165, 2171, 189 L.Ed.2d 83 (2014).

Section 157(b)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over core proceedings.

Jones v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In re Jones) · filed 2017-08-30(b)(2)

This matter is a core proceeding over which the bankruptcy court may exercise subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A), (G), (H), and (0) and the Standing Order of Reference of Bankruptcy Cases and Proceedings (Mise. Rule No. 33), for the Northern District of Texas, dated August 3, 1984.

Section 157(b)(1) authorizes bankruptcy courts to hear and determine core proceedings, including motions to modify the automatic stay under § 157(b)(2)(G).

In re Price · filed 2017-09-14(b)(1), (b)(2)(G)

The Stay Motion is a core proceeding as stated in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G), and the court has the authority to hear and determine the Stay Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) limits bankruptcy courts in non-core proceedings without consent to submitting proposed findings and conclusions for district court review.

MF Global Holdings Ltd. v. Allied World Assurance Co. (In re MF Global Holdings Ltd.) · filed 2017-10-30(c)(1)

Bankruptcy courts cannot finally resolve non-core disputes absent knowing and voluntary consent of the parties; they can only provide a report and recommendation to the district court.

Section 157 gives bankruptcy courts authority to hear and determine core proceedings, while limiting their authority over non-core proceedings absent party consent.

New Products Corp. v. Dickinson Wright PLLC (In re Modern Plastics Corp.) · filed 2017-09-22(b)(1), (b)(2)(A), (c)(1), (c)(2)

The adversary proceeding filed by New Products against the Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee was a core proceeding. Indeed, in its complaint against the trustee, New Products asserted as much. (Case No. l:15-ev-1026, PageID.225.) Likewise, the bankruptcy court determined that New Products’ adversary action was a core proceeding because it is a matter “concerning the administration of the estatef.]” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A). Moreover, a claim that the bankruptcy trustee breached his duties to the creditors can only arise in a case under Title 11. Thus, the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to “enter appropriate orders and judgments” in the adversary proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

Section 157(c) lets bankruptcy courts hear related-to proceedings, requires proposed findings for non-core matters, and permits final adjudication when all parties consent.

Hall v. MDC Innovations, LLC · filed 2018-03-01(c)(1), (c)(2)

The bankruptcy court may also hear a proceeding that is not a core proceeding, but is “related to” a case under Title 11. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). However, the bankruptcy court does not possess the statutory authority to enter a final judgment in non-core proceedings; that court, rather, must submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court. Id. The district court reviews de novo the portions of the proposed findings and conclusions to which any party has objected and enters a final order or judgment in those proceedings. Id. The statute permits an exception to this procedure, however, where all of the parties consent to the bankruptcy court’s final adjudication of non-core proceedings, subject to review by the district court under traditional appellate standards. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2).

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to issue non-final orders in non-core proceedings and proceedings involving claims it lacks constitutional authority to finally adjudicate.

Veros Energy, LLC v. GCube Ins. Servs., Inc. (In re Veros Energy, LLC) · filed 2018-04-26(c)

In non-core proceedings, as well as in proceedings involving Stern claims (i.e., claims that are statutorily core but that the bankruptcy court lacks constitutional authority to finally adjudicate), a bankruptcy court may issue non-final orders.

Section 157(b) permits bankruptcy judges to hear and determine core proceedings, including dischargeability determinations.

Matthew E. Jackson, Jr. v. Jackson · filed 2018-04-16(b)(1), (b)(2)(I)–(J)

This is incorrect because their case was a core proceeding that the bankruptcy court had the power to decide. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157(b) authorizes bankruptcy judges to decide core proceedings, including the validity, admissibility, and weight of evidence before them.

In re: New Century TRS Holdings, Inc. · filed 2021-02-16(b)(1)-(2)

As the Trustee correctly argues, the Florida Bankruptcy Court had jurisdiction to determine whether the Loan was enforceable based on the evidence presented to it. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(1)-(2)(A), (B), (K), (O); § 1334. This statutory grant includes the jurisdiction to determine whether evidence before the Florida Bankruptcy Court was valid and admissible, and the appropriate probative value to attribute to it.

Section 157(c)(1) requires a bankruptcy court to submit a report and recommendation to the district court in a noncore proceeding absent the parties’ consent to a final judgment.

U.S. Bank, National Association v. Tara Retail Group, LLC · filed 2021-08-10(c)(1)

Absent the consent of the parties, the Court is statutorily required to make a report and recommendation to the District Court, as opposed to entering a final judgment. ... In this case, consent is given.

Section 157 permits district courts to refer bankruptcy proceedings to bankruptcy judges and authorizes bankruptcy judges to enter final judgments in core proceedings.

Cournoyer v. Elansari · filed 2022-04-22(a), (b)

The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina has referred this case and this proceeding to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) by its Local Rule 83.11. This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b), in which this Court has statutory authority to enter final judgments.

Section 157(b) lets bankruptcy judges hear and finally decide core proceedings, including confirmation of a plan.

LWO Acquisitions Company, LLC dba Circuitronics, I · filed 2022-04-22(b)(2)(A), (L) and (O)

The Court has jurisdiction over this Bankruptcy Case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 157(b) and 1334. Venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 1408 and 1409. Confirmation of the Plan is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 157(b)(2)(A), (L) and (O) over which the Court has jurisdiction and full constitutional authority to enter a final order.

Section 157(b)(1) gives bankruptcy courts authority to hear, decide, and enter final orders and judgments in core proceedings.

LTL Management LLC · filed 2022-04-29(b)(1)

A bankruptcy court has the power to hear, decide and enter final orders and judgments in the first three categories of proceedings. 28 U.S.C. §157(b)(1); In re Roggio, 612 B.R. 655, 660 (Bankr. M.D. Pa. 2020).

Section 157 permits bankruptcy courts to exercise jurisdiction over and finally decide core proceedings, including matters concerning administration of the estate and stays.

LTL Management LLC - Adversary Proceeding · filed 2022-04-29(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(A), and (b)(2)(G)

As explained in detail below, this matter is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (G).

Section 157 permits bankruptcy judges to hear and finally decide core proceedings and requires them to determine whether a proceeding is core or merely related to a bankruptcy case.

Jackson v. Meyers · filed 2022-04-29(b)(1), (b)(3)

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). As to the former, the bankruptcy court may hear and determine such matters. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1). ... This is a core proceeding. No party has objected to the court entering final orders.

For non-core claims, bankruptcy courts issue proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for district court review.

Libertas Funding, LLC v. ACM Development, LLC · filed 2022-10-07(c)(1)

As described above, Plaintiff’s claims do not satisfy the definition of core bankruptcy proceedings, and “bankruptcy courts can only issue proposed findings of fact and law” for non-core claims.

Section 157 authorizes bankruptcy court jurisdiction and permits bankruptcy judges to enter final orders or judgments in core proceedings, while non-core proceedings may proceed to final adjudication with the parties’ consent.

Defot-Sido v. Carr · filed 2022-11-28(a), (b)(2)

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(a) and 1334 and the General Order of Reference from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dated August 15, 1984. With respect to the dischargeability and fraudulent conveyance portions of the Amended Complaint, this is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A), (H), (I), and (O), in which final orders or judgments may be entered by a bankruptcy judge. With respect to the remaining matters, this is a non-core proceeding for which the parties are deemed to have consented to final adjudication by the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(b)(2)(C) treats estate counterclaims against claimants as core proceedings, but Article III bars a bankruptcy court from entering final judgment on a private right tort counterclaim that does not require resolving the proof of claim.

Arma Yates, LLC v. Robertson (In re Robertson) · filed 2018-10-10(b)(2)(C)

On ultimate appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that while the bankruptcy court had statutory authority under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(C) to rule on the counterclaim, it lacked constitutional authority to do so under Article III. Specifically, the Court held that 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) violated Article III by allowing an Article I court (such as a bankruptcy court) to enter final judgment on a private right, common law counterclaim (such as tortious interference) that did not require the concurrent resolution of the creditor's proof of claim. ... This case bears the same jurisdictional infirmity. ... Consequently, this Article I Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the Debtors' private right, common law tort claims that "are not necessarily resolvable in the claims allowance process." ... For these reasons, the Court must dismiss the Debtors' Counterclaims for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear non-core proceedings and issue a report and recommendation to the district court.

Thomason v. LSF10 Master Participation Trust · filed 2023-01-03(c)(1)

The Court has concluded in both adversary proceedings that the issues presented are not core matters and therefore it has issued, pursuant to 28 USC § 157(c)(1) and Rule 9033, a separate report and recommendation to the United States District Court in each of the proceedings.

Section 157(b)(1) lets bankruptcy courts hear and determine core proceedings and enter appropriate orders and judgments, subject to appellate review by district courts.

In Re Mosdos Chofetz Chaim Inc. · filed 2023-01-05(b)(1)

In core proceedings—those “arising under” the Bankruptcy Code or “arising in” a bankruptcy case—bankruptcy courts may “hear and determine” claims and “enter appropriate orders and judgments,” subject to appellate review by the district courts. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1); Elliott v. Gen. Motors LLC (In re Motors Liquidation Co.), 829 F.3d 135, 153 (2d Cir. 2016). ... The bankruptcy court in this case had statutory authority to enter final judgment on the Contested Issues because bankruptcy courts “plainly” have “arising in” jurisdiction to interpret and enforce their own prior orders. In re Motors Liquidation Co., 829 F.3d at 153 (quotation marks omitted).

Section 157 permits bankruptcy courts to enter final orders in core proceedings and limits them to reports and recommendations in non-core proceedings absent consent.

Semco Manufacturing Company, Inc. · filed 2023-01-13(b)(1), (b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(O), and (c)(1)

Additionally, while bankruptcy judges can issue final orders and judgments for core proceedings, absent consent, they can only issue reports and recommendations on non-core matters. ... This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (O). ... Accordingly, this Court concludes that the narrow limitation imposed by Stern does not prohibit this Court from entering a final order.

Section 157(c)(1) lets a bankruptcy judge hear noncore proceedings and submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court for final decision.

Marilynn Lynn Thomason · filed 2023-01-03(c)(1)

The Court has concluded in both adversary proceedings that the issues presented are not core matters and therefore it has issued, pursuant to 28 USC § 157(c)(1) and Rule 9033, a separate report and recommendation to the United States District Court in each of the proceedings.

Section 157 identifies core proceedings and permits a bankruptcy court to enter final orders or judgments with the parties' consent.

Simply Funding, LLC v. Werman · filed 2023-06-15(b)(2)(I), (c), and (e)

Determinations of dischargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523 are core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I) and Local General Order No. 2012-7 entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. In addition, both parties have expressly consented to entry of final orders or judgment by the bankruptcy court (Docket No. 1 for creditor; Minutes of Dec. 6, 2022, pretrial for debtor). See 28 U.S.C. § 157(c) and (e); Wellness Intern. Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, 575 U.S. 665, 686 (2015) (“Article III permits bankruptcy courts to decide Stern claims submitted to them by consent.”); see also Hart v. S. Heritage Bank (In re Hart), 564 F. App'x 773, 776 (6th Cir. 2014) (bankruptcy court has constitutional authority to enter a final monetary judgment in nondischargeability action under § 523(a)(2)(B)).

Section 157 gives bankruptcy courts authority to enter final judgments in core proceedings and generally limits them to proposed findings in non-core proceedings, unless the parties consent.

Invst v. Highland Capital · filed 2023-07-28(b)(1), (c)(1), (c)(2)

Once bankruptcy jurisdiction is established, the bankruptcy court’s adjudicative power varies based on whether the particular proceeding is core or non-core. See In re OCA, Inc., 551 F.3d 359, 367 (5th Cir. 2008). For core proceedings, the bankruptcy court may enter final judgment, subject to review by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1). For non-core proceedings, the bankruptcy court’s power is generally limited to submitting proposed findings and conclusions to the district court, in order for the district court to enter final judgment. Id. § 157(c)(1). The bankruptcy court, however, is permitted to enter final judgment over non-core proceedings if the parties consent and if referenced by the district court. Id. § 157(c)(2).

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to adjudicate an automatic stay claim involving injury to the debtor’s estate, even when the same conduct also injures a nondebtor.

Bankr. L. Rep. P 77,500 · filed 1996-12-27

The bankruptcy court had jurisdiction over Dennis Walsh's lawsuit against Rodney Beard. See 28 U.S.C. § 157. While Beard injured Central Valley Apple Packing, a non-debtor, he also injured Walsh's bankruptcy estate by violating the automatic stay. Walsh asked the bankruptcy court to adjudicate the automatic stay action, not Central Valley's tortious interference claim.

Section 157(b)(1) authorizes bankruptcy judges to hear and determine core proceedings.

White Operating Company v. Bank of America NA · filed 2025-09-24(b)(1)

The summary judgment order disposing of the equitable subordination claim was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, i.e., the bankruptcy court presiding over a core proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) (“Bankruptcy judges may hear and determine all cases under title 11 and all core proceedings arising under title 11... .”).

Section 157(b)(2)(O) treats proceedings affecting the adjustment of the debtor-creditor relationship as core proceedings; a dispute requiring interpretation of a confirmation order is core because it could arise only in bankruptcy.

Fieldwood Energy LLC and The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors · filed 2022-02-08(b)(2)(O)

Proceedings affecting the adjustment of the debtor-creditor relationship are core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(O). ... Adjudicating this matter requires an interpretation of the Confirmation Order, which could not arise outside the context of a bankruptcy case.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats the adjudication of disputed monetary claims against a bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding.

Kerwin Burl Stephens - Adversary Proceeding · filed 2022-02-22(b)(2)(B)

Thus, because the Bankruptcy Claims asserted against the Debtor Defendants’ bankruptcy estates by the Plaintiffs incorporate the Removed Claims, this adversary proceeding is inherently core in nature.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) do not make state law claims core proceedings merely because their recovery affects administration of the bankruptcy estate.

OGGUSA, Inc. v. Southern Tier Hemp LLC · filed 2021-03-16(b)(2)(A), (O)

But the claims are not core under either § 157(b)(2)(A) or (O). ... The Plaintiffs’ claims for unjust enrichment, indemnification, subrogation, breach of express or implied contract, and promissory estoppel are state law claims that exist outside of the bankruptcy cases.

A state-law guaranty claim between nondebtors is noncore when it does not arise under the Bankruptcy Code, even if a recovery may benefit the estate.

Harlem Multifamily LLC v. Eight-115 Associates, LLC · filed 2021-03-16(b)

It is very clear that this contractual claim between two non-debtor parties is non-core.

Section 157(c)(1) authorizes a bankruptcy court to hear a non-core proceeding related to a bankruptcy case.

Kravitz v. Summersett (In re Great Lakes Comnet, Inc.) · filed 2018-06-19(c)(1)

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

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

Golden v. JP Morgan Chase Bank (In re Golden) · 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 identifies core proceedings and permits bankruptcy courts to determine them, including proceedings concerning estate administration, sale orders, and estate liquidation.

Denunzio v. Ivy Holdings, Inc. (In re E. Orange Gen. Hosp., Inc.) · filed 2018-06-28(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(N), and (b)(2)(O)

In considering whether a proceeding is "core," courts must first look to Section 157(b)'s non-exhaustive list of "core proceedings" to determine if the proceeding falls within that list. ... The Sale Enforcement Order concerned estate administration, related to an order approving the sale of property, and affected the liquidation of the estate.

In a non-core proceeding under § 157, the court of appeals reviews legal conclusions de novo and accepts the district court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous.

Renee Marie Thorpe v. · filed 2018-11-20

In this non-core proceeding, we review de novo conclusions of law and “treat the district court as the trial court, accepting its findings of fact unless clearly erroneous.” Copelin v. Spirco, Inc., 182 F.3d 174, 180 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 157).

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear non-core proceedings only when they are related to a Title 11 case.

Robert F. Troisio, of Immc Corp. v. Erickson (In Re Immc Corp.) · filed 2018-11-28(c)(1)

Non-core proceedings are “not . . . core” but are “otherwise related to a case under title 11.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). Since the adversary proceeding was neither core nor related to the Chapter 11 case, the Bankruptcy Court lacked jurisdiction to hear it.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a district court to treat a bankruptcy court’s judgment as proposed findings when the bankruptcy court lacked authority to enter final judgment.

Marshall v. Stern · filed 2019-01-31(c)(1)

Without a final judgment or other appealable order, the district court properly treated the bankruptcy court’s judgment as proposed findings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to enter interlocutory orders in a non-core proceeding without immediate district court review; the district court reviews proposed findings de novo before final judgment.

In Re: Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. · filed 2019-05-08(c)(1)

Put differently, until a non-core bankruptcy case is ready to be submitted to an Article III district court for de novo review and entry of final judgment, the Article I bankruptcy court is entitled to enter any interlocutory rulings that are required.

Section 157(c)(1) requires a bankruptcy court to submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court in a non-core proceeding related to a title 11 case.

Halperin v. Moreno · filed 2019-10-16(c)(1)

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

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear a non-core matter only if it is related to a bankruptcy case.

HRN Group, LLC v. Najarian Capital, LLC · filed 2019-12-19(c)(1)

A bankruptcy court may still have jurisdiction over a non-core matter if it is otherwise related to the bankruptcy proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). ... The complaint as to AP is not “related to” the Bankruptcy Case and the Court does not have jurisdiction over it.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear a non-core proceeding related to a bankruptcy case.

FMTB BH LLC - Adversary Proceeding · filed 2020-01-13(c)(1)

A bankruptcy judge may hear a non-core proceeding that is related to a bankruptcy case. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). This non-core proceeding is related to this bankruptcy case because the sale contracts are the only scheduled assets of the estate.

Section 157 treats claims that arise independently of bankruptcy as non-core proceedings even when their resolution could affect the bankruptcy estate.

Joseph and Kirschenbaum LLP v. Tenenbaum · filed 2020-01-16

Arguments predicated on effects on a bankruptcy estate sound in “related to” jurisdiction, and as such do not betoken a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear related non-core claims and submit proposed findings to the district court even when it cannot enter a final judgment on those claims.

Birchfield v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (RLJ2) · filed 2020-02-13(c)(1)

However, even though a bankruptcy court does not have jurisdiction to reach a final decision on a non-core claim, it nevertheless, “may hear a proceeding that is not a core proceeding but that is otherwise related to a case under title 11,” and, in such situation, shall “submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court, and any final order or judgment shall be entered by the judge.” ... Plaintiff clearly could have, and indeed did, raise the instant claims as non-core claims in her bankruptcy proceeding.

Section 157(c)(1) requires bankruptcy courts to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court for final orders or judgments in non-core matters, but not for interlocutory orders.

Windstream Holdings, Inc. v. Charter Communications, Inc. · filed 2020-02-19(c)(1)

By the Judiciary Act’s plain terms and as interpreted by the case law and leading commentator on bankruptcy, the requirement that bankruptcy courts submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in non-core matters to the district court applies only to “final orders or judgments.”

Section 157 treats an aiding-and-abetting claim derived from the debtor’s rights as non-core.

Lentz v. Parkland Legal Group, PL · filed 2020-03-12(b)(1)

Here, the Aiding and Abetting Count is non-core.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to hear non-core claims, but without the parties’ consent it cannot enter final orders or judgments on them.

Steffen v. The U.S. Small Business Administration · filed 2020-05-22(c)(1), (c)(2)

Counts I, II, and IV allege violations of the APA and seek mandamus relief. These claims do not originate in the Bankruptcy Code and are non-core. Accordingly, the bankruptcy court may hear them, but cannot issue final orders or judgments without the parties’ consent, which is absent in this case.

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

Barsa v. Theseus Strategy Group LLC · filed 2020-06-30

The Bankruptcy Court also has the power to enter an order on a motion to dismiss even if the matter is non-core or it has no authority to enter a final order on the merits.

A pre-petition insurance coverage action is non-core when it invokes no substantive right created by federal bankruptcy law and can exist outside bankruptcy.

Boy Scouts of America v. The Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company · filed 2020-08-06(b)(1)

Based on Plaintiffs’ arguments and the applicable law, the Court has no trouble concluding that this pre-petition insurance coverage action is a non-core proceeding as it does not invoke a substantive right created by federal bankruptcy law and is a case that can exist outside of bankruptcy.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to enter an order in a non-core proceeding when the parties knowingly and voluntarily consent.

VSP Labs, Inc. v. Hillair Capital Investments LP · filed 2020-08-21(c)(2)

For these reasons, the Court finds that the parties knowingly and voluntarily consented to the entry of the Lift Stay Order, and, accordingly, the Bankruptcy Court had jurisdiction to enter the Lift Stay Order.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear a non-core proceeding related to a bankruptcy case.

FMTB BH LLC - Adversary Proceeding · filed 2020-09-02(c)(1)

A bankruptcy judge may hear a non-core proceeding that is related to a bankruptcy case. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). This non-core proceeding is related to this bankruptcy case because the sale contracts are the only scheduled assets of the estate.

Section 157(c)(2) requires the parties’ consent before a bankruptcy judge may enter a final judgment in a non-core proceeding.

Lee v. Ahne · filed 2020-12-18(c)(2)

For all non-core matters, this Court cannot enter a final judgment without the Plaintiffs' and Ahne Defendants' consent. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2) (“[T]he district court, with the consent of all the parties to the proceeding, may refer a proceeding related to a case under title 11 to a bankruptcy judge to hear and determine and to enter appropriate orders and judgments ....”). They have consented to this Court's entry of a final judgment on these matters.

Section 157(c)(1) calls for a bankruptcy court to submit proposed findings and conclusions for district court review when a proceeding is non-core and a party has not consented to a final order.

White-Lett v. The Bank of New York Mellon, Corp. · filed 2021-03-12(c)(1)

Even if the Court were inclined to apply a rule of implied consent to Plaintiff, RRA has not consented to the entry of a final order by this Court. Therefore, the Court submits the following proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the District Court for de novo review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9033.

Section 157(b) treats a claim that exists independently of bankruptcy law as non-core.

Waldron v. Perkins Coie LLP · filed 2021-04-22(b)

In other words, the claim does not depend on bankruptcy laws for its existence and is therefore, “non-core.”

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment in a non-core proceeding when all parties consent; consent may be implied.

Ward v. Cross Keys Bank · filed 2021-09-07(c)(2)

A bankruptcy court may hear, determine, and enter final orders and judgment on non-core matters with the consent of all parties to the proceeding.

Section 157 classifies bankruptcy proceedings as core or non-core and gives bankruptcy courts broader authority over core proceedings, including sale-order proceedings.

Old Carco LLC, (f/k/a Chrysler LLC) · filed 2022-01-27(b)(2)(N)

Section 157 of the Judicial Code (title 28) divides proceedings into “core” and “non-core,” with the bankruptcy courts having broader authority to adjudicate core proceedings.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy judge, with the parties’ consent, to hear and decide a non-core proceeding and enter appropriate orders.

VSP Labs v. Hillair Capital · filed 2022-02-09(c)(2)

The parties having thus consented, the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to hear and enter appropriate orders related to the proceedings surrounding the entry of the Lift Stay Order.

Section 157(b) classifies proceedings that are merely related to a bankruptcy case as non-core.

Doe v. Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of New Orleans · filed 2022-03-03(b)

Because these claims are related to a bankruptcy, and are not proceedings arising under title 11 or in a title 11 case, these proceedings are non-core.

Section 157 identifies certain claims and counterclaims as core proceedings and permits bankruptcy courts to hear related non-core claims without finally resolving them.

Fort, Trustee v. Daileader · filed 2022-04-19(b)(2)(B)-(C), (c)(1)

A non-exhaustive list of core proceedings is provided in 28 U.S.C. § 157, which includes the allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate and counterclaims by the estate against persons filing claims against it. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B)-(C). A bankruptcy court may hear related non-core claims but cannot finally resolve them. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) requires a bankruptcy court to submit proposed findings and conclusions on a non-core claim for district court review before final judgment.

In Re: ASHINC Corporation · filed 2022-07-11(c)(1)

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

Section 157(c) permits a bankruptcy court to handle pretrial matters in a non-core proceeding, but requires a report and recommendation to the district court if it proposes a final disposition.

Highland Capital Management, L.P. v. Dondero · filed 2022-07-19(c)(1)

The Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, now pending, is the type of pretrial matter contemplated to be handled by the bankruptcy court (with submission to the District Court of a Report and Recommendation required—to the extent final disposition of any claim is proposed).

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear a non-core proceeding, while the district court enters the final order or judgment after reviewing proposed findings and conclusions.

Bernstein, Esq., Plan Administrator v. Meyer, Unkovic & Scott LLP · filed 2022-07-25(c)(1)

As provided in 28 U.S.C. §157(c)(1), a bankruptcy judge may hear a non-core proceeding; however, any final order or judgment is entered by the District Court upon review of the bankruptcy judge’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Section 157(b)(2) identifies claims arising in or under the Bankruptcy Code as core proceedings; related state law claims are non-core.

Waldrep, Jr. v. White · filed 2022-09-22(b)(2)

Claims that “arise in” or “arise under” the Bankruptcy Code are known as “core proceedings.” See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). “Related to” jurisdiction is more expansive as it includes non-core claims such as state law claims existing as of the filing of the bankruptcy case, such as the matters presently being challenged.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear a non-core proceeding related to a bankruptcy case.

USA PROMLITE TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. City of Hildalgo · filed 2022-10-05(c)(1)

Nevertheless, this Court has related to jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), which provides “[a] bankruptcy judge may hear a proceeding that is not a core proceed- ing but that is otherwise related to a case under title 11.”

Section 157 distinguishes core from non-core bankruptcy proceedings and permits a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment in a non-core proceeding with the parties’ consent.

HDR Farms Incorporated Liquidating Trust v. Applied Botanics LLC f/k/a XSI USA, LLC · filed 2022-12-15(b), (c)(2)

This is not a core proceeding but the Defendants consent to entry of final orders and judgment by this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2).

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to enter an interlocutory order dismissing fewer than all claims in a related non-core proceeding without the parties’ consent to final judgment.

Tomasino v. Inc. Vill. of Islandia (In re Suffolk Reg'l Off-Track Betting Corp.) · filed 2018-09-27(c)(1)

Although the Plaintiffs have not consented to entry of judgment by this Court ... this Court may enter an order dismissing Plaintiff's third cause of action because such an order is interlocutory.

Section 157 classifies estate administration and fraudulent conveyance recovery as core proceedings and distinguishes them from related non-core proceedings.

O'Neil v. New Eng. Rd., Inc. (In re Neri Bros. Constr. Corp.) · filed 2018-09-27(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(H), (c)

This adversary proceeding is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A) (matters concerning the administration of the estate) and (H)(proceedings to determine or recover fraudulent conveyances) regarding Counts I, II and III, seeking recovery of fraudulent conveyances and unauthorized post-petition transfers, and is a non-core proceeding related to a case under Title 11, United States Code, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c) regarding Counts IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII.

Section 157(c)(1) allows a bankruptcy court to hear a related non-core proceeding and submit proposed findings and conclusions, but not enter a final judgment.

Trokie v. U.S. Bank Trust Nat'l Ass'n (In re Trokie) · filed 2018-10-05(c)(1)

While bankruptcy courts have jurisdiction to hear "non-core" proceedings that are related to a case under title 11, they can only submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law but cannot issue final orders or judgments. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c).

Under § 157(b)(2), claims that invoke no bankruptcy-created right and can exist outside bankruptcy are non-core.

Yip v. Grant Thornton LLP (In re Providence Fin. Invs., Inc.) · filed 2018-10-09(b)(2)

A non-exhaustive list of "core-proceedings" is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). ... Accordingly, the Aiding and Abetting Claim and the Accounting Claim constitute non-core claims that will be referred to arbitration.

Section 157(c)(1) allows a bankruptcy judge to submit proposed findings and conclusions in a non-core proceeding but does not authorize the judge to enter a final judgment.

Fuhrman v. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y, FSB (In re Fuhrman) · filed 2018-12-18(c)(1)

Because only non-core counts remain, the Court is authorized pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the District Court, but may not enter a final order or judgment as to these remaining counts.

Section 157(b)(2) identifies core bankruptcy proceedings, while proceedings merely related to a bankruptcy case are non-core.

Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London Syndicate 1861, Subscribing to Policy No. ANV122398A v. Daileader · filed 2023-01-13(b)(2)

Whether a case (1) arises under or in Title 11 or (2) is merely related to a case under Title 11 is coterminous with the analysis of whether a case is a “core” or “non-core” bankruptcy proceeding. ... Ifa case is only related to a case under Title 11 but does not arise under or arise in Title 11, then the case constitutes a “non-core” proceeding, Id.; see In re Leco Enters., 144 B.R. 244, 248 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (“[T]he core proceedings listed in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) are essentially identical to the claims defined as ‘arising in’ and ‘arising under’ proceedings in 28 U.S.C. § 1334.”). ... Here, although the instant case relates to a bankruptcy proceeding, at bottom it is a state law contract dispute — brought under state law declaratory judgment provisions — about the extent of insurance coverage. ... Since these rights exist outside of bankruptcy, they do not arise in bankruptcy for jurisdictional purposes. And the possibility that a defense may necessitate interpretation of the Bankruptcy Code does not suffice to render the instant case a core proceeding.

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

Achaogen, 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(c) places adjudication of this non-core proceeding in the district court.

Cipollone v. Applestein · filed 2023-02-06(c)

It was not, however, transferred to the Bankruptcy Court because it is not a core proceeding and must therefore be adjudicated by a district court.

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

Daniel H. Golden, as Litigation Trustee of the QHC v. Community Health Systems, Inc. · filed 2023-03-16

This Court has jurisdiction to decide the Motion to Dismiss 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 classifies proceedings as core or non-core; claims that do not arise from the Bankruptcy Code may be non-core.

Antunes v. Holber · filed 2023-04-30(b)

Counts I-III and Counts VI-XIII are all non-core with only potentially “related to jurisdiction” because they are state law claims or do not emanate in any way from the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 157 permits a district court to refer bankruptcy cases and proceedings to bankruptcy judges and distinguishes core from non-core proceedings.

Kenneth P. Silverman, Esq., The Chapter 7 Trustee v. 741 Dyslexington LLC · filed 2023-07-26(a)

Section 157 permits the district court to refer all cases and proceedings within its bankruptcy jurisdiction to the bankruptcy court. 28 U.S.C. § 157(a). ... Section 157 divides proceedings into “core” and “non-core.” ... The dispute between non-debtors Dyslexington and Ting over the enforcement of Dyslexington’s alleged right to indemnification from Ting at issue in the Third-Party Complaint is not a core proceeding because it does not directly involve any of the bankruptcy estates and does not arise under title 11 or in case under title 11.

Section 157(b)(2)(A)–(C) identifies matters that are core bankruptcy proceedings within a bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction.

Enovational Corp. v. State of Maryland · filed 2023-07-27(b)(2)(A)–(C)

Thus, while the allegations in the Complaint are state law based, any determination thereof will both (i) impact the administration of the Debtor’s estate and (ii) in part, or in full, determine the allowance or disallowance of the Maryland POC. Furthermore, the Debtor’s claims against Maryland overlap with some of the counter allegations to the Maryland POC in the Claim Objection. Each of these questions are core proceedings arising under Title 11 over which the Court has subject matter jurisdiction See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A)–(C).

Section 157(b)(2) treats these turnover and compensation matters as core bankruptcy proceedings.

In Re NTG Industries, Inc. · filed 1990-08-27(b)(2)(A), (E), and (O)

These matters constitute core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (E) and (O) ... .

Section 157(b)(2)(C) treats counterclaims by the estate against a creditor as core proceedings even when they do not affect allowance of that creditor’s claim.

In Re: CBI Holding Company · filed 2008-06-16(b)(2)(C)

The TCW claims are in a slightly different posture than the CBI claims; none of them affect the allowance of E&Y’s fees claim against the estate. Nonetheless, the TCW claims qualify as core under the language of § 157(b)(2)(C), because they are “counterclaims by the estate against persons filing claims against the estate.”

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to decide malpractice claims arising from work performed in administering a bankruptcy estate as core proceedings.

In re Aston Baker · filed 2010-07-30(b)(1)

A bankruptcy court has “plenary jurisdiction over ‘all cases under [T]itle 11 and all core proceedings arising under [T]itle 11, or arising in a case under Title 11’” Mt. McKinley Ins. Co. v. Corning Inc., 399 F.3d 436, 447-48 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1)). ... The adjudication of Baker’s malpractice and other claims was an “essential part of administering the estate” and therefore implicated the bankruptcy court’s “core jurisdiction.”

Section 157(b)(2)(B) and (K) treats claim objections, lien avoidance, and homestead exemption claims as core proceedings.

In re: Paul C. Sumpter · filed 2011-10-13(b)(2)(B) and (K)

Sumpter’s claims for relief for lien avoidance and a homestead exemption, as well as his claim objection, are statutorily defined “core” proceedings enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) and (K), and involve substantive rights created under bankruptcy law.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats proceedings that determine whether claims against a bankruptcy estate should be allowed or disallowed as core proceedings.

Ace Am. Ins. v. DPH Holdings Corp. · filed 2011-11-29(b)(2)(B)

Core proceedings include those seeking the “allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate,” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), and, here, the resolution of whether Delphi’s estate is liable for those workers’ claims will determine whether the claims asserted against the estate should be allowed or disallowed.

Section 157(b)(2) treats turnover and stay enforcement claims as core proceedings in which bankruptcy courts may enter final judgment, subject to constitutional limits.

In re: Death Row Records, Inc. · filed 2012-03-21(b)(2)

As explained below, the Claims are also “core” proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) and, accordingly, bankruptcy courts may enter final judgment in such proceedings subject to any constitutional limitations on the powers of Article I courts under Stern v. Marshall, – U.S. – , 131 S.Ct. 2594 (2011).

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

In re: Edra D. Blixseth · filed 2012-08-09(b)(2)(B)

The allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate are core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) regardless of whether resolution of the matter involves application of state law.

Section 157(b)(1) allows a bankruptcy judge to enter final judgment in a core proceeding, including a dispute that depends on a right created by the Bankruptcy Code.

Fire Eagle L.L.C. v. Bischoff (In Re Spillman Development Group, Ltd.) · filed 2013-02-28(b)(1)

Because the basis for this dispute is whether Fire Eagle’s credit bid had the effect of extinguishing the Senior Indebtedness, and because the right to credit bid is purely a creature of the Bankruptcy Code, see 11 U.S.C. § 363(k), we fail to see how this proceeding does not qualify as core under § 157(b)(1) and ... therefore hold that the bankruptcy court’s entering an order without reference to the district court was within its statutory authority.

A lien validity claim involving property still in the bankruptcy estate at least nominally qualifies as a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(K).

In re: Walter R. Pineda · filed 2013-04-23(b)(2)(K)

Here, as reflected in the record, the bankruptcy court was well aware that, technically, all of the Adversary Proceeding claims and the Property were still property of the estate, so the lien validity claim at least nominally would qualify as a 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K) core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) makes allowance or disallowance of a claim a core proceeding even when state law may govern the underlying dispute.

In re: Ateco, Inc. · filed 2013-07-15(b)(2)(B)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), allowance or disallowance of Hebb’s claim is a core ... proceeding, notwithstanding that state law might be applied to resolve the fee dispute.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) treat a proceeding as core when it concerns current estate administration, liquidation of estate assets, or adjustment of the debtor-creditor relationship.

In re: John Patrick Stokes · filed 2013-09-23(b)(2)(A), (O)

Thus, the stated categories of core matters encompassed the Declaratory Relief Action only to the extent it involved current liquidation of assets, a current adjustment of debtor-creditor relationship, or current administration of the bankruptcy estate. Here, the Declaratory Relief Action achieved none of these goals.

Section 157 treats an adversary proceeding objecting to a debtor’s discharge as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

In re: Arvind Kaur Sethi · filed 2014-06-30(b)(2)(J)

The latter two provisions, 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(1) and 157(b)(2)(J), expressly confer upon the bankruptcy court “core” bankruptcy jurisdiction over Wells Fargo’s objection to discharge adversary proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(J) treats a proceeding to deny a debtor’s discharge as a core proceeding.

In re: Dustin Roger Chantel and Elizabeth Darlene Chantel · filed 2015-07-01(b)(2)(J)

Pierce and the UST sought a judgment denying Debtors’ discharge under § 727(a), a classic core proceeding per 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(J).

Section 157 treats claims based solely on state law that can be brought independently in state court as non-core proceedings.

In re: Peter Szanto · filed 2016-06-03(b)(1)

We agree with the bankruptcy court that Mr. Szanto’s adversary proceeding is a non-core proceeding. He brought his adversary proceeding against a non-consenting third party allegedly in order to bring into the estate property in which his leasehold interest had terminated by its terms. His claims are based solely on state law and not bankruptcy law. None of his claims depend on the Bankruptcy Code for their existence, and they could be brought independently in state court.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) do not make a debtor’s dispute over a prepetition insurance contract a core proceeding merely because its outcome affects the bankruptcy estate.

Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, Syndicates 2623/623 v. GACN, Inc. (In Re GACN, Inc.) · filed 2016-08-25(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(O)

When we look at the four above-referenced Ninth Circuit cases as a whole, we are persuaded that GACN’s declaratory relief action against the insurer is not a core proceeding. The underlying dispute solely concerns the parties’ rights and liabilities under a prepetition insurance contract, which was entered into pursuant to state law rather than as a part of a bankruptcy case.

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

In re: Peter F. Bronson and Sherri L. Bronson · filed 2016-10-12(b)(2)(B)

Among the list of core proceedings is the allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate.

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

In re: Go Global, Inc. · filed 2016-11-22(b)(2)(H)

Go Global moved to amend its complaint to add a claim for fraudulent transfer, which is a core matter under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H) that “arises in” a bankruptcy case.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats proceedings determining the validity, extent, or priority of liens against estate property as core proceedings.

In re: Ilia Charov · filed 2016-12-20(b)(2)(K)

We disagree with Charov that the claims at issue in the adversary proceeding were non-core. Among the list of "core" proceedings is the determination of the validity, extent or priority of liens against property of the estate. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats a motion to determine a debtor’s tax liability as a core proceeding when the liability is asserted in proofs of claim.

In re: Cm Reed Almeda 1-3062, LLC · filed 2017-04-26(b)(2)(B)

When, as here, tax liability has been asserted in proofs of claim filed in the bankruptcy case, a § 505 motion seeking a determination of the debtor’s tax liability falls within the ambit of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), which identifies as “core” the allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate.

Section 157 permits bankruptcy judges to hear and determine core proceedings, including proceedings to determine the dischargeability of a debt.

In re: JAMES L. GERARD, Jr. and JULIE S. GERARD · filed 2014-12-08(b)(1), (b)(2)(I)

Such a proceeding "arises under" the Bankruptcy Code, because it is a cause of action created by § 523 and is a "core" proceeding the bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

A trustee’s motion to sell estate assets as part of a settlement is a core bankruptcy proceeding.

In re: Joseph Debilio · filed 2015-02-27(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(N)

Up until the time the trustee sold the estate’s assets to Vibiana, those assets were property of the estate, and the trustee’s sale/settlement motion covering those assets was a core bankruptcy proceeding over which the bankruptcy court duly exercised jurisdiction.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) and (K) classify exemption disputes and determinations of lien validity as core bankruptcy proceedings.

In re Hewitt · filed 2017-11-08(b)(2)(B), (K)

The Court declares the claims presented by this motion and objection are core matters under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(B) and (K), over which this Court has constitutional authority to enter a final judgment.

Section 157(b)(2)(G) classifies a request to lift the automatic stay as a core proceeding.

In re Mosher · filed 2017-11-10(b)(2)(G)

This matter is a core proceeding because it is a request to lift the automatic stay, and such a request is expressly defined as a “core proceeding” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G).