28 U.S.C. § 157

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

O'Toole, solely in her capacity as Chapter 7 v. Radium2 Capital, LLC · filed 2025-05-30(b)(2)(F)

These adversary proceedings and these motions are core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F) as proceedings to avoid and recover alleged preferences.

Section 157(b)(1) does not treat state law claims against nondebtor parties as core proceedings when they do not affect the administration of the bankruptcy estate.

Archer Farms v. UMB Bank, N.A. · filed 2025-06-03(b)(1)

The Court has already found that this action is not a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (H) classifies matters concerning estate administration and fraudulent transfers as core proceedings in which a bankruptcy court has statutory authority to enter a final judgment.

Burns v. Broder · filed 2025-06-06(b)(2)(A), (H)

This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (H), so this court has statutory authority to enter a final judgment.

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

Bright Green Corporation v. Fikany · filed 2025-06-06(b)(2)(B)

However, if a creditor files a proof of claim in the bankruptcy case asserting a claim against the bankruptcy estate, the proceeding to adjudicate allowance or disallowance of the claim is a core proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b) permits a bankruptcy court to hear and finally determine core proceedings.

Progressive Security Insurance Company v. Wilson · filed 2025-06-10(b)

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).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) covers a motion to compel compliance with § 345(b) as a core matter concerning administration of the estate.

Amro Mohammed Samy and Darla Gay Samy · filed 2025-06-11(b)(2)(A)

A motion to compel compliance with § 345(b) is a core matter under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) (“matters concerning the administration of the estate”), over which this Court may exercise subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 157 treats the allowance or disallowance of claims against a bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding, even when the claims arise under state law.

Guan v. Ellingsworth Residential Community Association, In · filed 2025-06-23(b)(2)(B)

Section 157 defines the “allowance ... or disallowance of claims against the estate or exemptions from property of the estate, and estimation of claims or interests for the purposes of confirming a plan under chapter 11” as a “core proceeding.” ... Thus, there is no Stern problem here because we have held that Guan’s state claims were in fact core proceedings to which she consented to the bankruptcy court adjudicating.

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

Dawn Buckingham, MD, Commissioner v. Pearl Resources LLC · filed 2025-06-27(b)(2)(A) and (O)

This Court determines that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) this proceeding contains core matters, as it primarily involves proceedings concerning the administration of this estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats claim allowance as a core bankruptcy proceeding, even when resolving the claim involves related state law contract issues.

Apple Central KC LLC v. Applebee's Franchisor, LLC · filed 2025-06-30(b)(2)(B)

claim allowance is unquestionably an integral function of the Bankruptcy Court and an enumerated core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B); and ... Because the determination of liability under the Franchise Agreements is inextricably tied to the consideration of the Proof of Claim, severing the contract issues from the claim allowance process would be inefficient.

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

Hawaii Stage and Lighting Rentals, Inc. v. Rodrigues · filed 2025-07-01(b)(2)(B)

HSLR’s objection to Mr. Rodrigues’s proof of claim is a “core proceeding” because it involves the “allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate . . . .” Id. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2)(L) treats approval of a postconfirmation plan modification as a core proceeding.

Steven Leon Sorrells and Christina Johnson Sorrells · filed 2025-07-02(b)(2)(L)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(L), “confirmations of plans” are core proceedings. In this manner, approval of a postconfirmation modification is a core proceeding.

Section 157 does not make a dispute solely between nondebtors a core proceeding when resolving it would have no impact on the bankruptcy estate.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Leo · filed 2025-07-09(b)(2)

The Bankruptcy Court’s holding is not only correct, but the logical legal outcome: “[d]etermining the rights between the non-debtors—Dortha and the Bank— will have no impact on the estate, does not arise under [T]itle 11, and is not a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(2).” (Doc. 6-67 at 3). This Court agrees with the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157(b) treats dismissal or conversion motions and Rule 2004 examinations as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Cenergy, LLC · filed 2025-07-18(b)

Dismissal or conversion under section 1112 is a matter which arises under the Bankruptcy Code, and examination under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 is a matter arising in a bankruptcy case. As such they are both core proceedings within the Court’s jurisdiction.

Section 157(b)(2)(F) treats proceedings to avoid and recover alleged preferences as core proceedings.

Albert Togut, Not Individually but Solely in His C v. Barasky · filed 2025-07-18(b)(2)(F)

The adversary proceeding is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F) as a proceeding to avoid and recover alleged preferences.

Section 157(b) treats motions to dismiss or convert a bankruptcy case and Bankruptcy Rule 2004 examinations as core proceedings.

Consumers Cooperative Association of Eau Claire · filed 2025-07-18(b)

Dismissal or conversion under section 1112 is a matter which arises under the Bankruptcy Code, and examination under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 is a matter arising in a bankruptcy case. As such they are both core proceedings within the Court’s jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b), 28 U.S.C. §§157(b)(1), (b)(2)(A), (O).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) makes objections to the allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate core proceedings on which the bankruptcy court may enter a final judgment without the claimant’s consent.

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre, Ne and Parishes, As Additional Debtors · filed 2025-07-21(b)(2)(B)

Claim objections are defined by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) to be core. Therefore, this Court can enter a final judgment on this claim objection despite the claimant’s lack of consent, as his consent is irrelevant here.

Section 157(b)(2) treats estate administration, claim allowance, lien validity, and plan confirmation as core proceedings.

Rene Pierre Solomon · filed 2025-07-29(b)(2)

“Core Proceedings” include matters concerning the administration of the estate; allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate; determinations of the validity, extent, or priority of liens; confirmations of plans; and other proceedings affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate or the adjustment of the debtor-creditor or the equity security holder relationship, except personal injury tort or wrongful death claims. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (B), (K), (L), (O). The Debtor’s allegations, at their essence, fall within these categories and there is no discernible reason the District Court would withdraw the reference to sort out the debtor-creditor relationship of the parties and usurp the claims administration process.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats a request to turn over property of the bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding.

Crane Enterprises, LLC v. Crane · filed 2025-07-29(b)(2)(E)

This is a “core proceeding” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E) because it concerns a request for the turnover of property of the estate (core proceedings include “orders to turn over property of the estate”).

Section 157(b)(2)(I) treats determinations of whether particular debts are dischargeable as core bankruptcy proceedings.

State Bar of Nevada v. Wike · filed 2025-07-31(b)(2)(I)

Congress has instructed that “[c]ore proceedings include . . . determinations as to the dischargeability of particular debts.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I); see Gruntz, 202 F.3d at 1081 n.5. Therefore, the Nevada Supreme Court’s order conditionally reinstating Wike to the Bar is not preclusive under Rooker-Feldman, because otherwise it “would constitute an unauthorized infringement upon the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction.” Gruntz, 202 F.3d at 1082.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) treats a request to approve a bankruptcy compromise as a core proceeding.

Josiahs Trucking, LLC · filed 2025-08-04(b)(2)(A), (O)

Requests for authority to compromise disputes under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rule”) 9019 are a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) and have no equivalent in state law, thereby rendering the Supreme Court’s opinion in Stern v. Marshall inapplicable.

Section 157(b)(2)(G) treats motions to terminate the automatic stay as core proceedings that bankruptcy courts may hear and determine.

Lopez v. Jenkins · filed 2025-08-07(b)(2)(G)

Bankruptcy courts are authorized to hear and determine all core proceedings arising under Title 11. Motions to terminate the automatic stay are specifically enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G) as core matters.

Section 157(b)(2) treats proceedings about a debtor’s discharge and the dischargeability of a debt as core proceedings.

INDVR Brands, Inc. v. Mascio · filed 2025-08-08(b)(2)

This dispute is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(B), (b)(2)(I) and (b)(2)(J), because it seeks a determination as to the dischargeability of a particular debt and a challenge to the Debtor’s entitlement to a discharge.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) covers a motion to enforce a bankruptcy court’s prior sale and confirmation orders when the motion concerns administration of the estate.

BowFlex Inc. · filed 2025-08-11(b)(2)(A)

The Motion to Enforce falls within the scope of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) as a “matter[ ] concerning the administration of the estate.”

Section 157’s designation of claim allowance as a core bankruptcy task does not, by itself, prevent enforcement of an arbitration agreement.

DMK Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Catalent Belgium, S.A. · filed 2025-08-14(b)(2)

While the Court agrees with the Plaintiffs that the allowance of claims against the estate and their order of priority is a core task of the Bankruptcy Court, that alone does not justify vitiating the parties’ agreement to arbitrate their disputes.

Section 157(b) permits a bankruptcy court to hear a postconfirmation motion to interpret and enforce a confirmation order as a core proceeding.

Congoleum Corporation v. · filed 2025-08-22(b)

The Bankruptcy Court had jurisdiction over the motion to reopen under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) because the motion for an order interpreting and enforcing the Confirmation Order was a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2) treats proceedings about the dischargeability of a debt or a debtor’s entitlement to discharge as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Graham v. Mascio · filed 2025-08-22(b)(2)

This dispute is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(B), (b)(2)(I) and (b)(2)(J), because it seeks a determination as to the dischargeability of a particular debt and a challenge to the Debtor’s entitlement to a discharge.

Section 157(b) treats the allowance or disallowance of claims and the dischargeability of debts as core bankruptcy proceedings.

In Re: Anthony Leo Montez · filed 2025-09-04(b)

Section 157(b) explicitly recognizes the “allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate” and “determinations as to the dischargeability of particular debts” as core proceedings.

Section 157(b)(2)(H) treats an action to avoid a transfer as a core proceeding that the bankruptcy court may decide.

Sikes v. Prime Holdings Insurance Services Inc · filed 2025-09-11(b)(2)(H)

The Court agrees with Prime and finds that Count 1 is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(C) treats an estate’s counterclaim against a creditor who filed a claim as a core proceeding when the counterclaim is part of deciding that claim.

HARADA FAMILY DENTAL CARE, P.C. v. STRATEGIC FUNDING SOURCE, INC · filed 2025-09-25(b)(2)(C)

The usury claim is a “counterclaim[ ] by the estate against persons filing claims against the estate.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(C). It is a component of the Claim Objection.

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

Motors Liquidation Company · filed 2025-10-14(b)(2)(N)

This request squarely falls within the Court’s “core” jurisdiction as it pertains exclusively to the interpretation of the Sale Order, and this Court has jurisdiction to enforce its own orders.

Section 157 treats a state-law contract dispute as a core proceeding when resolving it is necessary to adjudicate a bankruptcy claim.

ZACHRY HOLDINGS, INC. v. OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT · filed 2025-10-31(b)(2)

As a preliminary matter, the adversary proceeding concerns core matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 157. ... While it is undisputed the Contract is governed by Nebraska law, the state-law basis of a claim does not per se render a matter non-core where resolving the state-law claims is necessary to adjudicating a proof of claim.

Section 157(b) treats a motion to enforce a bankruptcy plan and determine the effect of rejecting an executory contract as a core proceeding that the bankruptcy court may decide.

Gold Star Energy, LLC v. Chisholm Oil · filed 2025-11-14(b)

The Bankruptcy Court had jurisdiction to decide this dispute which was a core matter under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157(b)(2)(L) classifies plan confirmation proceedings as core proceedings.

Chrome Holding Co. · filed 2025-11-26(b)(2)(L)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(B) and (K) classify claim allowance and lien determinations as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Teresa Vanessa Morton · filed 2025-12-01(b)(2)(B) and (K)

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

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

Choudhri v. Natl Bank of Kuwait · filed 2025-12-04(b)(2)(B)

The allowance or disallowance of a claim against the bankruptcy estate is a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2) treats proceedings involving settlement and sale of estate property as core proceedings.

In re James A. Little and Jan R. Little · filed 2025-12-10(b)(2)

Settlements and sales of estate property concern the administration of the estate, allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate, and liquidation of estate property. Accordingly, the instant dispute is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A)–(B), (N)–(O).

Section 157(b)(2) treats proceedings concerning dischargeability of debt as core bankruptcy matters.

Ellis · filed 2025-12-11(b)(2)(A) and (I)

The adversary proceeding pending before this Court is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (I).

Section 157(b)(3) requires a bankruptcy judge to determine whether a proceeding is core or related to a bankruptcy case; independent postpetition state-law tort claims are not core proceedings.

Mascio · filed 2025-12-17(b)(3)

Congress also mandated that a bankruptcy judge “determine, on the judge’s own motion or on timely motion of a party, whether a proceeding is a core proceeding . . . or is a proceeding that is otherwise related to a case under title 11.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3). ... Plainly, none of those claims “arise under” the Bankruptcy Code or “arise in” the Main Case. They are not “core” claims.

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

Taylor · filed 2025-12-18(b)(2)(I)

This is a core proceeding as contemplated by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I).

Section 157 treats proceedings involving estate administration and enforcement of bankruptcy court orders and the discharge injunction as core proceedings.

Felton · filed 2025-12-23(b)(2)(A) and (O)

This matter is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (O), as it concerns the administration of the estate and the debtor–creditor relationship, including the enforcement of this Court’s orders and the discharge injunction.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) treat this dismissal contest as a core proceeding concerning estate administration and the liquidation of estate assets or adjustment of the debtor-creditor relationship.

McGann · filed 2025-12-30(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(O)

The dismissal contest is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A) (matters concerning administration of the estate) and (b)(2)(O) (other proceedings affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate or the adjustment of the debtor-creditor relationship).

Section 157(b) permits a bankruptcy court to hear and finally determine core proceedings.

Falterman · filed 2025-12-31(b)

With all parties’ consent, [ECF Doc. 9], 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).

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

Seidel · filed 2026-01-02(b)(2)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats this proceeding concerning attorney conduct in a bankruptcy case as a core matter concerning administration of the estate.

Celestine Spriggs · filed 2026-01-05(b)(2)(A)

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) (matters concerning the administration of the bankruptcy estate).

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

Landrum-Ellis · filed 2026-01-12(b)(2)(I)

The determination of the dischargeability of a particular debt is a core proceeding as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) treat a proceeding that could arise only in a bankruptcy case as core, permitting the bankruptcy judge to enter a final order.

Nelkin & Nelkin P.C. v. Two Rivers Coffee · filed 2026-01-12(b)(2)(A), (O)

The pending dispute before this Court is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (O).

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

Rund · filed 2026-01-16(b)(2)(I)

This adversary proceeding brought pursuant Rule 7001(f) (a ... proceeding to determine whether a debt is dischargeable) is a “core proceeding” under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I) (a determination as to the dischargeability of particular debts).

Section 157 treats matters involving estate administration or adjustment of the debtor-creditor relationship as core proceedings that a bankruptcy judge may decide.

In re One Main Development, LLC · filed 2026-01-16(b)(2)(A), (O)

Matters involving the administration of an estate or the adjustment of the debtor-creditor relationship are core proceedings. 28 U.S.C. §157(b)(2)(A), (O). The matters here arise directly from the Debtor’s bankruptcy itself and from the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and may therefore be constitutionally decided by a bankruptcy judge.

Section 157(b) covers an action against a bankruptcy trustee concerning administration of estate property even when the action asserts state law claims.

In re Alpha Beta Gamma Trust · filed 2026-01-16(b)

Thus, even though Appellant’s Action asserted state law claims, it was inextricably tied to questions concerning the proper admunistration of the Debtor’s estate. Accordingly, Appellant’s Action against Appellee was within the scope of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334 and 157(b).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) do not make an injunction against a Chapter 7 debtor’s company a core proceeding when it would not affect administration or liquidation of the bankruptcy estate.

Beck · filed 2026-02-09(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(O)

Section 157(b)(2)(A) states that matters concerning the administration of the estate constitute a core proceeding. In contrast, § 157(b)(2)(O) says that proceedings that affect the liquidation of estate assets or the debtor-creditor relationship are core. ... As such, whether the Court enters an injunction against Acme and limits its ability to operate does not affect the Trustee’s ability to administer the estate. Similarly, Acme’s ability to operate post-petition has no bearing on the liquidation of Beck’s bankruptcy estate.

Section 157 permits a district court to refer a core bankruptcy proceeding for final adjudication without the parties’ consent.

Trahant v. Mintz · filed 2026-02-11(b)–(c)

Because Plaintiffs’ claims are “core,” the district court was permitted to refer this action to the bankruptcy court for all purposes without Plaintiffs’ consent.

A prepetition negligence claim is not a core proceeding merely because a recovery could increase the bankruptcy estate.

In re Wright Brothers Aircraft Title, Inc. · filed 2026-02-11(b)(2)(O)

A debtor's pre-petition tort claim for negligence is generally not considered a core proceeding because it does not invoke a substantive right under Title 11 or arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case. ... Thus, the Debtor’s potential claim for negligent procurement of insurance against IPA is not a core matter.

Section 157 treats requests for payment of administrative expenses as core proceedings that bankruptcy courts may hear and determine.

Storey Minerals v. EP Energy E&P · filed 2026-03-10(b)

Also, a proceeding to determine a request for payment of administrative expenses, pursuant to § 503(a) and (b)(1)(A), is a “core proceeding”—one arising under title 11, or arising in a case under title 11—for purposes of the jurisdictional provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) and § 157(a)–(b).

Section 157(b)(2) does not treat a state-law guaranty action as a core proceeding when the action could exist independently of bankruptcy.

White · filed 2026-03-11(b)(2)

It does not invoke any substantive rights created by the bankruptcy laws. Rather, the action could exist independently of any bankruptcy proceeding and is therefore not a “core proceeding.”

Section 157(b) gives a nonexhaustive list of core proceedings; claims that can exist outside bankruptcy are not core proceedings.

In re Colorado Centre Metropolitan District · filed 2026-03-18(b)

Section 157(b) lists sixteen examples of core proceedings; however, this list is non-exhaustive.13 Ultimately, core proceedings are those having no existence outside bankruptcy.14 ... The issues in this proceeding do not depend on bankruptcy laws for their existence. ... As such, the Court cannot find that the issues in this proceeding constitute core proceedings.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a § 362(k) claim for violation of the automatic stay as a statutorily core bankruptcy proceeding.

Goldman Sachs Bank USA v. Rhea Brown · filed 2026-03-18(b)(2)

We agree that the § 362(k) claim is constitutionally core because it “stems from the bankruptcy itself or would necessarily be resolved in the claims allowance process,” Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462, 499 (2011), and that it is also statutorily core, see 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

A request for sanctions arising from an attorney’s conduct in a core proceeding is itself a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(A) and (O).

Nedd · filed 2026-03-26(b)(2)(A) and (O)

This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A) and (O). And as this Court has observed, “a request for sanctions arising out of an attorney's conduct in a core proceeding is itself a core proceeding.”

A proceeding to enforce the discharge injunction is a core proceeding because it arises only because of the Bankruptcy Code and affects the debtor-creditor relationship.

Michael D. Scott · filed 2026-04-01(b)(2)(O)

It concerns, second, the alleged violation and enforcement of the discharge injunction imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 524(a), which is a matter arising only because of the Bankruptcy Code and one that affects the adjustment of the debtor-creditor relationship within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(O).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (G) treats a determination of the extent of the automatic stay as a core proceeding.

In re IHN Podiatry Services · filed 2026-04-06(b)(2)(A), (G)

And a determination of the extent of the automatic stay is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) & (G).

Section 157(b)(2)(I) treats determinations of whether particular debts are dischargeable as core bankruptcy proceedings.

In re: Olivier Francois P. Rigon AND Christine Hui Seoun Kwon · filed 2026-04-13(b)(2)(I)

“[D]eterminations as to the dischargeability of particular debts” are core proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I). Thus, the bankruptcy court had not just core but exclusive jurisdiction over the Complaint.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) treats a dispute over whether a debt was discharged under a confirmed bankruptcy plan as a core proceeding.

Rubottom · filed 2026-04-13(b)(2)(I)

The Court finds that the instant cause of action is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (I), and (L), has a close nexus and is related to the bankruptcy case, and that the Bankruptcy court retained jurisdiction to interpret and enforce its own order at issue in this case.

Section 157(b)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to finally determine a core proceeding concerning estate administration, a sale of estate property, and enforcement of its prior orders.

In re Law Enforcement Officers Security Union · filed 2026-04-17(b)(2)

The matter presently before the Court constitutes a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). More specifically, the Motion concerns the administration of the bankruptcy estate, the approval and implementation of a sale of estate property under 11 U.S.C. § 363, and the enforcement of this Court’s prior orders, all of which fall within the scope of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (N), and (O). As such, this Court has the statutory authority to hear and determine the Motion on a final basis.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a motion to remand that primarily involves removal as a core proceeding.

Lawley · filed 2026-04-23(b)(2)(A)

The Motion to Remand pending before this Court is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) because it primarily involves a request for removal.

Civil rights claims that do not invoke bankruptcy rights or exist exclusively in bankruptcy are non-core proceedings, even when they could affect the bankruptcy estate.

Bet Midrash Ohr Hachayim Hakadosh v. City of Hollywood · filed 2026-04-29(b)

There is no question here that the claims asserted by Bet Midrash in the complaint are non-core claims. These claims are civil rights claims that neither invoke substantive rights created by federal bankruptcy law nor exist exclusively in the bankruptcy context.

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

In re James and Jan Little · filed 2026-05-01(b)(2)(A)

Among core proceedings are “matters concerning the administration of the estate.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A). The imposition of sanctions is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(O) does not make state-law claims core proceedings merely because a possible recovery could affect liquidation of estate assets.

Ritz · filed 2026-05-12(b)(2)(O)

Likewise, Patmon’s argument that his claims against Sandhills fall under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(O) as a core proceeding affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate is not compelling.

Section 157(b)(1) treats a stay violation claim as a core proceeding because the claim exists only in connection with a bankruptcy case.

Dugas · filed 2026-05-14(b)(1)

It is a core matter because it involves a claim which has no existence absent the filing of a bankruptcy case—the automatic stay at issue arose upon the filing of Ms. Dugas’s bankruptcy petition in the Second Bankruptcy Case and exists only in connection with such bankruptcy case.

Section 157(b)(2)(O) does not make state law claims core proceedings merely because a recovery could benefit the bankruptcy estate.

Patmon · filed 2026-05-15(b)(2)(O)

Likewise, Patmon’s argument that his claims against Sandhills fall under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(O) as a core proceeding affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate is not compelling.

Section 157(b) does not list a removed eviction action consisting entirely of state law claims as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Thong · filed 2026-05-19(b)

The notice of removal states this is a core proceeding, but this eviction proceeding is not one of the core proceedings listed in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157(b)(2) does not make a prepetition mortgage accounting dispute core merely because it resembles a listed category of core proceedings; the substance of the claims matters.

Long · filed 2026-05-26(b)(2)

Despite arguably fitting into the literal wording of the enumerated core proceedings in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (O), declaratory actions such as these “can and do exist outside the bankruptcy court.” ... Considering the nature of the claims, ultimately based on discrepancies in accounting that occurred prior to this bankruptcy under a prepetition contract, which could be brought in another court, this proceeding is a non-core matter.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) and (O) classify proceedings concerning the effect of a discharge, its injunction, and related contempt sanctions as core proceedings.

David Anthony Vranicar · filed 2026-05-22(b)(2)(I), (O)

This is a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(I) and (O) because it requires the Court to determine the scope and effect of the Debtor’s discharge, the applicability of the discharge injunction, and whether contempt sanctions are appropriate for alleged violation of that injunction.

Section 157 treats a dispute over the payment and reasonableness of attorney’s fees as a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy court may enter final judgment.

In re George W. Conway and Ellen Conway · filed 2026-06-05(b)(2)(A)

The matter before the Court is payment and reasonableness of attorney’s fees. So this is a core proceeding under section 157(b)(2)(A). The Court may enter final judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a dispute over a mortgage payment change as a core proceeding when it involves administration of the bankruptcy estate.

In re Gerald Joseph Dimes · filed 2026-06-18(b)(2)(A)

This Court determines that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) this proceeding contains core matters, as ruling on the Notice of Payment Change involves the administration of this estate.

Section 157 does not treat specific performance claims against a debtor’s solvent subsidiaries as core proceedings merely because the parent is in bankruptcy.

Chariot Holdings, Ltd. v. Eastmet Corp. · filed 1987-02-23(b)

Although the parties disagree as to whose conduct resulted on the ultimate severance of the specified performance action from the bankruptcy action, it appears that Heisley’s claims against the three solvent counterdefendants were not “core proceedings” under the Bankruptcy Code (See 28 U.S.C. sec. 157 (Supp. II 1984)), and thus were properly remanded to the State court.

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

In the Matter of Donald Arthur POWELSON and Mary Margie Powelson, Debtors. Appeal of James M. MORE, Trustee · filed 1989-06-21(b)(2)(L)

In the present case, the bankruptcy court’s confirmation of the Creditors’ liquidation plan was a “core proceeding” subject to appellate review by the district court under section 158(a).

Section 157(b)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to determine a creditor’s proof of claim for distribution even when the dispute began as a state summary process proceeding.

In Re Admetric Biochem, Inc. · filed 2002-09-30(b)(2)

This Court recognizes that the instant action was initiated as a summary process proceeding and then removed to this Court by the Trustee. Nevertheless, to consider this action merely as a summary process proceeding at this juncture would elevate form over substance as the parties have essentially asked this Court to determine Cummings’ proof of claim for purposes of distribution under 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(6). Thus, this Court has jurisdiction to determine the claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A), (B) and (O), and 1334(a).

Section 157(b)(2) does not make every claim in a bankruptcy adversary proceeding a core proceeding.

Kaufman v. Monte (In Re Kaufman) · filed 2004-10-19(b)(2)

As originally filed, it included numerous claims under nonbankruptcy law that were “noncore” under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) and potentially subject to a jury trial. The court elected to dismiss these claims without prejudice, retaining only Kaufman’s claims under Bankruptcy Code § 362(h).

Section 157 treats a proceeding as core when it invokes a substantive right under title 11 or, by its nature, could arise only in a bankruptcy case.

Reunion Industries, Inc. v. Steel Partners II, L.P. · filed 2008-04-01(b)

However, Defendants’ convoluted argument based on § 157 cannot supplant the binding analysis set forth in Stoe regarding the interpretation of § 1384(c)(2) — the statute at issue. ... The Stoe Court’s reference to core/noncore matters is simply a recognition that Third Circuit precedent uses the same, narrow, test to determine whether a matter is core or non-core as that set forth in Stoe for the “arising under” and “arising in” inquiry. ... In other words, despite Defendants’ efforts to recast the Amended Complaint, it would not be a “core” proceeding under Third Circuit precedent.

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to decide a core proceeding when third-party claims depend on interpreting rights created in bankruptcy.

Spillman Investment Group, Ltd. v. American Bank (In Re Spillman Development Group, Ltd.) · filed 2009-01-29(b)(1)

As such, this Court has jurisdiction of this proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a) and (b), 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) and (b)(1), 28 U.S.C. § 151 and the Standing Order of Reference of all bankruptcy related matters by the United States District Court, Western District of Texas. Although this proceeding involves claims of third parties against Fire Eagle, this is a core proceeding as the claims are dependent upon interpretation of rights created in bankruptcy specifically those rights associated with § 363 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 157(b)(1) treats proceedings arising under title 11 as core proceedings; a trustee’s administration of an ERISA plan does not qualify when ERISA supplies the substantive rights.

In Re Mid-States Express, Inc. · filed 2010-07-02(b)(1)

Core proceedings are defined as proceedings “arising under” title 11 and proceedings “arising in” a case under title 11. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1). ... This court holds, consistent with those courts, that section 704(a)(ll) does not confer “arising under” jurisdiction on this court because the substantive rights at issue are provided by ERISA and not the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 157 treats a proceeding requiring a bankruptcy court to interpret or enforce its sale order as core.

Threshold Entertainment Inc. v. Midway Games Inc. (In Re Midway Games Inc.) · filed 2011-03-29(b)

Unlike Allegheny, nothing in the Adversary requires the Court to interpret or enforce the terms of the Sale Order.

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

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

Since the Replevin Actions do not arise under or arise in the Debtors’ bankruptcy cases, they are, simply, not core.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a bankruptcy court’s enforcement of its own sale order as a core proceeding.

SR Construction Inc v. RE Palm Springs II LLC · filed 2023-05-05(b)(2)

And because “a court’s enforcement of its prior order is a ‘core’ matter,” id. (citing In re Marcus Hook Dev. Park, Inc., 943 F.2d 261, 266–67 (3d Cir. 1991)), the Court will review the conclusions of law below de novo and the findings of fact for clear error.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to enter a final judgment in a core proceeding arising in a Title 11 case, including a proceeding to enforce its own order.

Johnson v. People's Bank · filed 2023-08-17(b)(1)

This Court would hold similarly—where, as here, a bankruptcy court is called upon to enforce its own order, there is at least “arising in” jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). The Bankruptcy Court, therefore, had jurisdiction to hear this case both pursuant to Travelers Indemnity Co. and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334 and 157.

Section 157(b)(2) treats proceedings concerning estate administration, claims against the estate, and sales of estate property as core proceedings.

Foster · filed 2020-10-15(b)(2)

Second, with respect to the core versus non-core distinction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c), a core proceeding is a proceeding arising under title 11 or arising in a case under title 11, which includes matters concerning the administration of the estate, the allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate (including professional fee and expense claims of a trustee and other estate professionals), and sales of property of the estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a proposed settlement of estate claims in a Chapter 11 plan as a core matter concerning administration of the estate.

Skyline Ridge, LLC · filed 2020-11-16(b)(2)(A)

Further, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), “matters concerning the administration of the estate” ... are core proceedings. The Skyline Note and the Debtor’s claims against Cinco arising from the Skyline Note and related documents are assets of the estate, and as such, the settlement agreement set forth in ... Cinco’s Amended Plan, which proposes to resolve the Debtor’s claims against Cinco pertaining to the Skyline loan documents, directly concerns the administration of the estate. ... Based upon the foregoing, the Court has jurisdiction over these proceedings.

Section 157(b)(2) treats decisions about the automatic stay and executory contracts as core bankruptcy proceedings.

HARLAN PAGE CONFER and CHARLOTTE CLUFF CONFER · filed 2021-06-08(b)(2)

The scope of the stay and the decision to modify, or not to modify it, are core and fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of this court.

Section 157(b) does not make a claim for an injunction compelling an energy purchase contract a core proceeding when the claim does not invoke a bankruptcy right or arise only in bankruptcy.

Winding Creek Solar LLC v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company · filed 2021-07-15(b)

Accordingly, the Court finds that Appellants’ claim for injunctive relief does not constitute a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157 treats approval of a settlement of claims held by a bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding within the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction.

Chan v. U.S. Trustee · filed 2021-08-13(b)(1)

Because the Court concludes that the settlement of the RICO claims is a core proceeding, the Court concludes that the Bankruptcy Court had jurisdiction to approve the settlement of the RICO claims.

Section 157(b)(1) permits bankruptcy judges to hear and decide core proceedings, including proceedings to enforce a discharge injunction.

In re Dana Kim Shelton · filed 2021-10-18(b)(1)

But this appeal concerns the bankruptcy court’s authority to conduct proceedings to determine whether Appellants violated the discharge injunction, and those proceedings are unmistakably core proceedings over which the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction.

Section 157 authorizes a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment on core claims and on claims the parties consent to have it decide.

Baerg Real Prop. Trust v. Garland Solution, LLC (In re Baerg Real Prop. Trust) · filed 2018-03-30(b)(1), (c)(2)

The claims before the Court are core claims under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (B), (K), and (O). The parties have consented to the Court deciding all pending claims. The Court has authority to enter a final judgment in this adversary proceeding.

Section 157(b)(1) gives a bankruptcy court statutory authority to enter final judgment on core proceedings.

Dery v. Karafa (In re Dearborn Bancorp, Inc.) · filed 2018-04-20(b)(1)

For these reasons, this Court has statutory authority, under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), to enter a final judgment on all of Plaintiff's claims.

Section 157 gives a bankruptcy court statutory authority to enter a final order in a proceeding when both parties consent.

Griego v. FGMS Holdings LLC · filed 2023-09-21

Plaintiffs assert that this matter is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (B), (K), and (L). Both parties have consented to this Court’s jurisdiction to enter a final order. ... As such, the Court finds that it has the requisite statutory authority to enter a final order in this proceeding.

Section 157 classifies fraudulent conveyance proceedings as core, but a bankruptcy judge’s authority to enter final judgment remains subject to constitutional limits.

Yanagi v. McElrath · filed 2024-03-06(b)(2)

The statute specifies that “[p]roceedings to determine, avoid, or recover fraudulent conveyances” are a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). ... Thus, the bankruptcy court can enter a final judgment on all claims against Mr. McElrath and 2149 but may only enter proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on all claims against CDI.

Section 157 allocates final judgment authority between bankruptcy and district courts without changing subject matter jurisdiction; parties may consent to a bankruptcy judge entering final judgment in a noncore case.

In re: U.S.A. Dawgs, Inc. · filed 2024-02-28(a), (b)(1), (c)(1), and (c)(2)

Section 157 allocates the authority to enter final judgment between the bankruptcy court and the district court. See §§ 157(b)(1), (c)(1). That allocation does not implicate questions of subject matter jurisdiction. See § 157(c)(2) (parties may consent to entry of final judgment by bankruptcy judge in noncore case).

Section 157(c)(1)'s proposed-findings procedure does not require referral back to the district court when the bankruptcy court has authority to enter a final order.

Ashley Aarons Trustee of The Ashley Aarons 2015 Tr v. Lexington Insurance Company a Delaware Corporation · filed 2024-06-21(c)(1)

This Bankruptcy Court interprets District Judge Wilson’s minute order (adv. dkt. 44) as a direction to this Bankruptcy Court to issue a final order resolving this proceeding (if possible) – as distinguished from burdening the District Court by making only proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (a/k/a a “report and recommendation”) and sending this matter back to the District Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) and Rule 9033 (Fed. R. Bankr. P.). This Bankruptcy Court also concludes that it has the statutory and Constitutional authority to issue a final order on the matters presented.

Section 157(b)(1) authorizes a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment in a core proceeding.

Gold v. Wall, Sr. · filed 2024-06-21(b)(1)

For these reasons, this Court has statutory authority, under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), to enter a final judgment on all of Plaintiff’s claims.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment in a proceeding concerning the allowance of claims against the estate.

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association v. The Hertz Corporation · filed 2025-01-02(b)(2)

The Court has the power to enter a final judgment in this adversary proceeding because it concerns the allowance of claims against the estate.

Section 157(b) and (c) divide authority to enter final orders and judgments between bankruptcy and district courts without changing subject-matter jurisdiction.

Hiefield, III v. Westlund · filed 2025-05-20(b) and (c)

Under section 157(b) and (c), authority to enter the final order or judgment is divided between the bankruptcy and district courts—but that division does not affect subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear and determine a core proceeding by entering a final order.

St. Luke's Health System, Ltd. v. Bundy · filed 2025-08-05(b)(1)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), the Court may hear and determine the present matter/motion by entry of a final order because it is a core proceeding as it arises under the Bankruptcy Code in this bankruptcy case and may also be included as a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (I).

Section 157(c) does not allow a bankruptcy court to enter a final order in a noncore proceeding without the parties’ consent.

Leif M. Clark, Trustee of the Edgemere Litigation v. Intercity Investment Properties, Inc. · filed 2025-08-20(c)

This matter is not a core proceeding and the Court lacks authority to enter a final order. Likewise, the Defendants do not consent to this Court’s entry of final orders.

Section 157(b)(2)(H) authorizes a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment in a fraudulent conveyance action.

Cifelli v. Mursalim (In re Miles) · filed 2012-09-20(b)(2)(H)

Stern and the Constitution do not preclude the bankruptcy court from entering final judgment in a fraudulent conveyance action. Even if they did, however, the court would retain the power to hear such cases and propose findings of fact and conclusions of law to the District Court.

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to enter final judgment on a fraudulent conveyance claim when resolving it is necessary to decide a creditor’s proof of claim.

4100 West Grand LLC v. TY Grand LLC (In re 4100 West Grand LLC) · filed 2012-10-16(b)(1)

The proofs of claim filed herein make it clear that their resolution depends on the outcome of the Debtor’s fraudulent conveyance claims. The court agrees. For that reason the court has authority to enter a final judgment herein.

Section 157 allocates authority to enter final judgment between bankruptcy and district courts; that allocation does not determine subject matter jurisdiction.

Talisman Capital Alternative Investments Fund, Ltd. v. Mouttet (In re Mouttet) · filed 2013-05-16

The inability to render a final judgment on a matter is not the same as lacking subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 157(b)(2)(H) authorizes bankruptcy courts to enter final judgments in fraudulent conveyance proceedings.

Bodenstein v. Univ. of N. Iowa (In re Peregrine Fin. Grp., Inc.) · filed 2018-07-11(b)(2)(H)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H), the court will also enter a separate final judgment in this adversary proceeding.

Section 157(c)(1) limits a bankruptcy court in a related-to proceeding to issuing findings and recommendations for the district court’s de novo consideration of dispositive motions.

Sugarman v. IRZ Consulting, LLC · filed 2025-04-24(c)(1)

Since this court’s jurisdiction is “related to” the bankruptcy case, this court cannot render a final judgment in this matter. The District Court has deferred from withdrawing its reference under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) and this court is directed to supervise discovery, rule on non-dispositive motions, and issue findings and recommendations for de novo consideration by the District Court as to dispositive motions.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment when all parties knowingly and voluntarily consent; consent may be implied from their conduct.

Humberto Saenz, Jr. v. Gomez · filed 2018-08-07(c)(2)

We have reviewed the aforementioned facts for clear error and have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the parties in their briefs, and find no error in the conclusion that all parties gave implied consent, thus vesting the bankruptcy court with jurisdiction to issue a final ... judgment.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy judge to enter a final judgment in a related proceeding with the parties’ consent.

639 Lanark LLC v. Alamo Lanark, LLC · filed 2024-01-03(c)(2)

The Court has authority to issue a final judgment on this matter because both parties have consented to it doing so.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment on a non-core claim with knowing and voluntary consent, which may be implied when a defendant defaults after clear notice.

Milazzo, solely in his capacity as Creditor Truste v. Techakraisri · filed 2024-04-30(c)(2)

In this case, the summons that was served upon Mr. Techakraisri contained the following statement: ... That language could not have been clearer.

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

Owoc · filed 2026-03-24(c)(2)

Under § 157(c)(2), a bankruptcy court may enter a final order in such a proceeding with the consent of all parties.24 Here, the parties have consented,25 and the Court thus has authority to enter final judgments in this proceeding.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to enter final orders and judgments with the parties’ consent when they dispute whether a proceeding is core.

Jackson Hospital & Clinic, Inc. v. Blue Cross · filed 2026-06-17(c)(2)

The Hospital and BCBSAL do not agree on whether this is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), but they have consented to this Court’s entry of final orders and judgments, as contemplated under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2).

Section 157(b)(3) assigns the core or non-core determination to the bankruptcy judge.

Gypsum Resources LLC v. Clark County · filed 2019-11-07(b)(3)

However, it is for the bankruptcy judge to decide whether a matter is “core” or “non-core,” not the referring court.

Section 157(d) requires a party to seek withdrawal of a bankruptcy court reference promptly after learning the grounds for withdrawal.

In Re Debtor: Eagan Avenatti, LLP · filed 2021-12-10(d)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), “[t]he district court may withdraw, in whole or in part, any case or proceeding referred” to the bankruptcy court, “on its own motion or on timely motion of any party, for cause shown.” ... Considering the time between Plaintiff’s filing of the Adversary Proceeding and the time Defendants brought their Motion, the Court finds that the Motion was not “made as promptly as possible” and is therefore untimely.

Section 157(d) requires a motion to withdraw the bankruptcy reference at the first reasonable opportunity; meeting a local rule’s later deadline alone does not make the motion timely.

In Re Debtor: Eagan Avenatti, LLP · filed 2022-06-02(d)

Thus, in order to be timely, a motion to withdraw ... reference must be filed at the first reasonable opportunity (Section 157(d)) and no ... later than within seven days of the bankruptcy court issuing the pretrial order ... (L.B.R. 9015-2).

A motion to withdraw a bankruptcy reference is timely when filed promptly after the proceeding the party seeks to withdraw begins, before substantial litigation of that proceeding.

Reyes-Colon v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico · filed 2024-08-01(d)

On these facts, we are confident that the motion for withdrawal was timely.

A motion to withdraw the bankruptcy court reference under § 157(d) is timely when filed minutes after the underlying complaint.

Westport Insurance Corporation v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of the Roman Catholic Archbishop… · filed 2025-12-10(d)

Westport’s motion is timely under Section 157(d). Westport moved for withdrawal of the reference “mere minutes after filing the Complaint that initiated the proceeding.” Mot. at 7. This certainly qualifies as a “timely” motion to withdraw reference.

Section 157(d) requires a timely motion for either mandatory or permissive withdrawal of the reference to a bankruptcy court.

Montero v. Maria Elizabeth Montero Leon · filed 2025-12-15(d)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), withdrawal is either mandatory or permissive. However, a threshold issue for both mandatory and permissive withdrawal is whether the motion to withdraw was made in a timely manner. ... Therefore, Plaintiff did not move for this Motion as promptly as possible and the Motion is untimely.

Section 157(b)(1) allows a bankruptcy court to adjudicate a referred core proceeding even if it is constitutionally moot.

Kiviti v. Bhatt · filed 2023-09-14(b)(1)

But whether that proceeding could itself be adjudicated in an Article III court is of no moment. By § 157’s text, a bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction requires only that the case or core proceeding arise under Title 11 and be referred to the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(b)(5) does not provide a basis to remove an action.

In Re Andrew Delaney · filed 2025-02-11(b)(5)

Delaney also cites 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c), 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5), and 28 U.S.C. § 1411, but none of those statutory provisions is a basis to remove an action.

Section 157(b)(5) permits transfer of cases pending in state court to federal court in connection with a bankruptcy proceeding.

ARK561 Doe v. Franciscan Brothers of Brooklyn · filed 2023-11-03(b)(5)

There is no dispute that the plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5) authorizes the transfer of cases from state court to federal court.

Section 157(b)(5) permits transfer of cases from state court to federal court.

Ryan v. Our Lady of Mercy Roman Catholic Church · filed 2023-11-03(b)(5)

There is no dispute that the plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5) authorizes the transfer of cases from state court to federal court.

Section 157(b)(5) authorizes transfer of cases pending in state court to federal court.

ARK453 Doe v. Holy Trinity Diocesan High School · filed 2023-11-03(b)(5)

There is no dispute that the plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5) authorizes the transfer of cases from state court to federal court.

Section 157(b)(5) permits transfer of a case pending in state court to federal court.

Janas v. Parish of St. Mary · filed 2023-11-03(b)(5)

There is no dispute that the plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5) authorizes the transfer of cases from state court to federal court.

Section 157(b)(5) permits a district with pending bankruptcy proceedings to transfer cases from state court even after another district remands them.

Clancy v. St. Joseph's Parish · filed 2023-12-20(b)(5)

Because Section 157(b)(5) permits a district with pending bankruptcy proceedings to transfer cases from state court, this remand decision will not prevent the Southern District from granting the Diocese’s motion and transferring these cases to the Southern District if that court concludes transfer is warranted under Section 157(b)(5).

Section 157(b)(5) permits a district with a pending bankruptcy case to transfer cases from state court.

Mahoney-Acheson v. St. Raymond of Penyafort Roman Catholic Church · filed 2023-12-20(b)(5)

Because Section 157(b)(5) permits a district with pending bankruptcy proceedings to transfer cases from state court, this remand decision will not prevent the Southern District from granting the Diocese’s motion and transferring these cases to the Southern District if that court concludes transfer is warranted under Section 157(b)(5).

Section 157(b)(5) permits a district with pending bankruptcy proceedings to transfer cases from state court, even after another court remands them there.

LaBau v. St. Barnabas the Apostle Roman Catholic Church · filed 2023-12-20(b)(5)

Because Section 157(b)(5) permits a district with pending bankruptcy proceedings to transfer cases from state court, this remand decision will not prevent the Southern District from granting the Diocese’s motion and transferring these cases to the Southern District if that court concludes transfer is warranted under Section 157(b)(5).

Section 157(b)(5) permits a district with a pending bankruptcy proceeding to transfer cases from state court even after another court remands them.

Bourgeois v. St. Patrick's Roman Catholic Church · filed 2023-12-20(b)(5)

Because Section 157(b)(5) permits a district with pending bankruptcy proceedings to transfer cases from state court, this remand decision will not prevent the Southern District from granting the Diocese’s motion and transferring these cases to the Southern District if that court concludes transfer is warranted under Section 157(b)(5).

Section 157(b)(5) permits a district court with a pending bankruptcy case to transfer cases from state court, even after another district court remands them.

SWSU 1 Doe v. Infant Jesus Roman Catholic Church · filed 2023-12-20(b)(5)

Because Section 157(b)(5) permits a district with pending bankruptcy proceedings to transfer cases from state court, this remand decision will not prevent the Southern District from granting the Diocese’s motion and transferring these cases to the Southern District if that court concludes transfer is warranted under Section 157(b)(5).

Section 157(b)(5) permits a district with pending bankruptcy proceedings to transfer cases from state court even after they have been remanded there.

C.T. v. St. Hugh of Lincoln Roman Catholic Church · filed 2023-12-20(b)(5)

Because Section 157(b)(5) permits a district with pending bankruptcy proceedings to transfer cases from state court, this remand decision will not prevent the Southern District from granting the Diocese’s motion and transferring these cases to the Southern District if that court concludes transfer is warranted under Section 157(b)(5).

Section 157(b)(5) permits a district with pending bankruptcy proceedings to transfer cases from state court.

Zenkus v. Franciscan Brothers of Brooklyn · filed 2024-01-17(b)(5)

Because Section 157(b)(5) permits a district with pending bankruptcy proceedings to transfer cases from state court, this remand decision will not prevent the Southern District from granting the Diocese’s motion and transferring this case to the Southern District if that court concludes transfer is warranted under Section 157(b)(5).

Section 157(b)(5) permits transfer to the district where a bankruptcy case is pending whether the related case is in state or federal court.

MacKenzie v. Saint Patrick's Church · filed 2023-08-29(b)(5)

The Court is also unpersuaded by Defendants’ argument that holding the remand motions in abeyance pending Judge Schofield’s decision on the Diocese’s Section 157(b)(5) motion would be the “more judicially efficient approach.” See, e.g., Rogers v. Maria Regina Roman Catholic Church, et al., 23-CV-5110 (PKC), Dkt. 10, at 5. The Court fails to see what “efficiency gains from removal” will be “lost” if these cases are remanded to state court. (Id.) As the Honorable Allyne R. Ross explained in In Re: Child Victims Act Cases Removed From States Court: “Section 157(b)(5) allows the transfer of cases pending in federal court and state court to the federal district court where a bankruptcy proceeding is pending. See In re Pan Am. Corp., 16 F.3d 513, 516–17 (2d Cir. 1994). Defendants fail to explain how or why any efficiencies would be realized by a transfer of these cases from one federal court to another as opposed to from state court to federal court.”

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

Grace v. St. Mary's College Preparatory High School · filed 2023-08-29(b)(5)

The Court fails to see what “efficiency gains from removal” will be “lost” if these cases are remanded to state court. ... “Section 157(b)(5) allows the transfer of cases pending in federal court and state court to the federal district court where a bankruptcy proceeding is pending.

Section 157(b)(2)’s list of core proceedings does not by itself cover state-law claims against a nondebtor, but a bankruptcy court may have core jurisdiction when those claims trigger the debtor’s indemnification obligations and the automatic stay applies.

OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF TALC CLAIMANTS v. WHITTAKER · filed 2025-10-31(b)(2)

Here, the Appealed Claims are based on state law causes of action and do not fall neatly into the list of core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). ... As will be discussed, because the Appealed Claims, with two possible exceptions, trigger the Debtors’ indemnification provisions under the MSPA, the Bankruptcy Court properly determined that it had “core” jurisdiction.

Section 157 does not authorize a bankruptcy judge to oversee discovery in a core proceeding involving a state-law counterclaim that the judge lacks constitutional authority to finally decide.

Global Gaming Legends, LLC v. Legends Gaming of Louisiana-1, LLC (In re Louisiana Riverboat Gaming Partnership) · filed 2014-01-10(b)(2)(C)

This Court does not agree with Debtors’ interpretation of Stem and Sharif with regard to the ability of a bankruptcy court to preside over discovery matters. ... The Seventh Circuit in Sharif was unambiguous in pointing out that a bankruptcy judge does not have the statutory authority to oversee discovery in what would be a Stem-governed core proceeding in a bankruptcy case.

An objection under § 157(b)(5) to a bankruptcy court deciding a personal injury tort claim can be waived.

Tribune Media Company v. · filed 2018-09-05(b)(5)

As the Supreme Court has explained, a party may forfeit or waive any objections to § 157(b)(5) because that provision is not jurisdictional.