28 U.S.C. § 157

Section 157(b)(3) requires the bankruptcy court to determine whether a proceeding is core or otherwise related to a bankruptcy case.

Creditors' Committee of Gaslight Club, Inc. Ex Rel. Gaslight Club, Inc. v. Fredricks (In Re Gaslight Club, Inc.) · filed 1994-05-04(b)(3)

The Court must therefore make this determination. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3). In the Seventh Circuit, a proceeding is core under 28 U.S.C. § 157 "if it invokes a substantive right provided by title 11 or if it is a proceeding that, by its nature, could arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case.” ... The counterclaim is non-core, but its resolution may have a direct and substantial impact on the asset pool available for distribution to the estate. Accordingly, Fredricks’ counterclaim is a "related to” proceeding. The remaining counts are core.

Section 157(b)(2)(B), (C), and (I) do not provide core jurisdiction over an action that concerns only limits on collection, with no claim against the estate, counterclaim, or dischargeability issue.

Kewanee Boiler Corp. v. Smith (In Re Kewanee Boiler Corp.) · filed 1996-07-11(b)(2)

This action does not seek to adjudicate dischargeability of Smith’s claim, only a restriction of the amount he many collect, so (I) does not apply by its terms. Smith has withdrawn any claim against this estate and no counterclaim lies against him, so (B) and (C) do not apply.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear non-core state-law claims related to a bankruptcy case and submit proposed findings and conclusions for district court review.

Hutchins v. Fordyce Bank & Trust Co. (In re Hutchins) · filed 1997-07-11(c)(1)

The remainder of the complaint states causes of action that are based upon state law, and, despite the fact that the causes arose post-petition, are non-core matters “related to” the debtor’s bankruptcy case. Specifically, these are causes of action which are owned by the debtor which affect the administration of the title 11 case, but which, in the absence of the bankruptcy, could have been brought in the state courts. The bankruptcy court may exercise “related to” jurisdiction in a proceeding, hear the matter, and issue proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for review by the district court.

Section 157 permits a proceeding to be classified as non-core but related to a bankruptcy when its outcome could conceivably affect the debtor’s estate or rights.

Williams v. Seeley (In Re Williams) · filed 1998-11-13

This proceeding is a non-core related to proceeding as provided for in 11 U.S.C. § 157. The test for determining whether an adversary proceeding relates to debtor's bankruptcy is whether the outcome of that proceeding could conceivably affect debtor's estate or alter debtor's rights, liabilities, options, or freedom of action.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats lien validity, extent, and priority determinations as core proceedings only when they concern estate or debtor property.

Continental Nat'l. Bank v. Sanchez · filed 1999-04-02(b)(2)(K)

However, the case law on (b)(2)(K) indicates that it encompasses only proceedings to determine the validity, extent, or priority of liens on the estate’s or the debtor’s property. ... Here, the real property on which the disputed mortgage existed belonged to the non-debtor Partnership, not to the Toledos or the Estate. The Estate owned a 50% interest in the Partnership, but no direct interest in the Partnership Property. Thus, § 157(b)(2)(K) is no basis for calling the instant proceeding a “core proceeding.”

Section 157 treats prepetition contract disputes that create no rights under bankruptcy law as non-core proceedings.

In Re Jotan, Inc. · filed 1999-04-12(b)

The issues raised by Movants and by Debtors’ counterclaim in Arbitration are not issues that “arise under” or “arise in” a case under Title 11. The parties involved have not argued otherwise. The Arbitration deals with no issues involving rights created by federal bankruptcy law. Therefore, the Court finding the raised issues to be non-core matters will address whether an arbitration clause should be enforced in a bankruptcy case where an underlying arbitration involves resolution of non-core matters.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear related, non-core proceedings and submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court.

Aarismaa v. Jordan (In Re Aarismaa) · filed 1999-04-20(c)(1)

The Court concludes that the proceedings are “related to” the Debtor’s case and that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) to consider the Debtor’s complaints and to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the District Court with respect to the motions for summary judgment.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear a non-core proceeding related to a bankruptcy case, including a third party’s claim that may affect the estate.

Quality Botanical Ingredients, Inc. v. Triarco Industries, Inc. (In Re Quality Botanical Ingredients, Inc.) · filed 2000-06-16(c)(1)

Non-core proceedings include all proceedings that are not core proceedings but are nevertheless related to a bankruptcy case. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). ... Applying these jurisdictional principles to this case, the court finds that adding MRA as a party plaintiff and adding its claims for relief to those of QBI would constitute the proper exercise of non-core jurisdiction of a matter “related to” QBI’s bankruptcy.

Section 157(b) distinguishes core proceedings from related proceedings; a suit between nondebtors arising from a bankruptcy court order is related rather than core when it does not affect the estate or creditor relationships.

In re Allied Sign Co. · filed 2001-01-26(b)

The Court concludes that (1) the state court action is not a “core proceeding” but rather a “related to” proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b); (2) bankruptcy court permission is required to bring the matter in state court; and (3) leave should be granted in this case.

Section 157(b)(2) does not classify a declaratory judgment action over insurance proceeds as a core proceeding when the proceeds have not been established as property of the bankruptcy estate.

Camall Co. v. Steadfast Insurance · filed 2001-07-31(b)(2)

It is also clear that unless we adopt Carnall's circular argument and find that the interpleader proceeds are automatically property of the estate, the declaratory judgment action does not meet the statutory definition of a core proceeding set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(2)(H) does not make a constructive trust claim a core proceeding merely because it resembles a fraudulent transfer action.

Goodman v. Phoenix Container, Inc. (In Re DeMert & Dougherty, Inc.) · filed 2001-08-10(b)(2)(H)

The cause of action is in some respects comparable to a suit to recover a fraudulent transfer, but it does not fall within the Bankruptcy Court’s core jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H).

Section 157 limits bankruptcy courts to bankruptcy cases, core proceedings arising under them, and non-core matters otherwise related to them.

Medlin v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service (In Re Medlin) · filed 2001-10-04(b)(1), (c)(1)

Read together, these sections limit the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy courts to bankruptcy cases, core proceedings that arise under them, and non-core matters that are “otherwise related to” them.

Section 157 treats a proceeding as core only if it is related to a bankruptcy case.

Shuman v. Kashkashian (In Re Shuman) · filed 2001-12-21(b)(1)

Rather, all “core” proceedings must be “related” to a bankruptcy case and so may be considered a subset of the broader set.

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

Abner v. Mate Creek Loading, Inc. (In Re Mid-Atlantic Resources Corp.) · filed 2002-08-28(b)(2)(K)

Moreover, as noted by the bankruptcy court, even if Appellants are merely attempting to attach any interest the defendants named in the mechanic’s lien have in the Debtor’s estate, the validity, extent, and priority of the defendants’ liens in the estate must be determined by the bankruptcy court in order for the mechanic’s lien to be enforced. ... Upon review of the facts of this case and the lien, this Court agrees with the bankruptcy court’s conclusion. It is clear that Appellants’ claim exists by virtue of the post-petition financial arrangement which kept them employed from on or about September of 1999 through January of 2000. Without this arrangement, Appellants would have no claim for unpaid wages and benefits in January 2000. Thus, the Court finds Appellants’ claim necessarily arose in a case under title 11, as described in § 1334(b), and is a core proceeding.

Section 157 gives bankruptcy judges authority to enter judgments in core proceedings and to make proposed findings in non-core proceedings related to a title 11 case.

XL Sports, Ltd. v. Lawler · filed 2002-10-08(b)(1), (c)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3)

Our reading comports with 28 U.S.C. § 157, which gives bankruptcy judges authority to enter judgments in “all core proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in a case under title 11,” but only allows them to make proposed findings in “a proceeding that is not a core proceeding but that is otherwise related to a case under title 11.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), (c)(1). The language of § 157(b)(1), as we have noted before, “apparently equates core proceedings with the categories of ‘arising under’ and ‘arising in’ proceedings.” In re Wolverine Radio Co., 930 F.2d 1132, 1144 (6th Cir.1991). Section 157(c)(1) correspondingly implies that “a proceeding ... related to a case under title 11” is non-core. The wording of § 157 obviously parallels the phrases used in § 1334(c)(2) and reinforces the conclusion that mandatory abstention applies only to non-core proceedings.

Section 157 distinguishes core and non-core bankruptcy proceedings and governs the handling of non-core proceedings.

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Teu Holdings, Inc. v. Kemeny (In Re Teu Holdings, Inc.) · filed 2002-11-01

The present claims against HILS involve non-core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157(b)(2)(A), (K), (M), and (O) identifies categories of bankruptcy matters as core proceedings, while a deed rescission claim outside those categories is non-core.

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. St. Louis (In Re Apponline.com, Inc.) · filed 2003-02-24(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(K), (b)(2)(M), and (b)(2)(O)

Countrywide in its Amended Complaint asserts that this adversary proceeding is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (K), (M) and (O). While these subsections may cover the portion of the complaint concerning the rights of the parties in and to the St. Louis Note and Mortgage, they do not apply to Countrywide’s cause of action seeking to rescind the Deed.

Section 157(b)(2) treats an action to collect a prepetition account receivable as a non-core proceeding related to the bankruptcy case.

United Methodist Youthville, Inc. v. Lutheran Social Services (In Re United Methodist Youthville, Inc.) · filed 2003-03-10(b)(2)

The Court’s independent research reveals that the prevailing, and better, view is that an action to collect a prepetition account receivable is non-core and, therefore, a “related to” proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(H) does not classify prepetition state-law malpractice and fiduciary-duty claims as core proceedings merely because the complaint also included conveyance claims that were dismissed.

Krigel v. Noble (In Re American Energy Trading, Inc.) · filed 2003-04-01(b)(2)(H)

Since the Court has dismissed Counts I and II, there is no basis for this jurisdiction because Counts III and IV are not claims to determine, avoid or recover conveyances—they are state law tort claims arising from pre-petition conduct. The Court finds that these remaining Counts are non-core matters; therefore, the Court must determine whether the proceeding is a “related to” proceeding.

Section 157(b) treats this state-law foreclosure challenge as a related proceeding rather than a core proceeding.

York v. Bank of America, N.A. (In Re York) · filed 2003-04-03(b)

The bank contends that this is a related proceeding instead of a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). The court agrees.

Section 157(b)(2) does not treat an action to collect a prepetition contract claim as core when the defendant has not filed a proof of claim, even if recovery would fund the debtor’s plan.

New Knight, Inc. v. National Wire & Metal Technologies, Inc. (In Re New Knight, Inc.) · filed 2003-04-03(b)(2)

More significantly, however, adversary actions instituted to collect pre-petition contract claims, where the adverse party has not filed a proof of claim in the bankruptcy case, have historically been viewed here and elsewhere as being non-core matters over which the bankruptcy court possesses only “related to” jurisdiction.

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

Slone v. M2M International, Inc. (In Re G-P Plastics, Inc.) · filed 2005-02-07(c)(1)

A bankruptcy court has original jurisdiction to hear “core” proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) and, by virtue thereof, may hear non-core, related claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) do not bring every state-court proceeding within the categories of core bankruptcy proceedings.

Wetzel v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. · filed 2005-04-26(b)(2)(A), (O)

We also note that Defendants' attempt to engraft the State Court Proceeding onto the catch-all subcategories of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) ("matters concerning the administration of the estate”) and (O) ("other proceedings affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate...” is unavailing).

Section 157 treats a contract dispute as a core proceeding when resolving it directly affects the bankruptcy court’s administration of the case.

In Re Transcom Enhanced Services, LLC · filed 2005-04-29(b)(2)

In particular, if a contract dispute would have a “much more direct impact on the core administrative functions of the bankruptcy court” versus a dispute that would merely involve “augmentation of the estate,” it is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(1) does not give a bankruptcy court jurisdiction over a noncore dispute between nondebtors when its resolution cannot conceivably affect the bankruptcy estate.

First Home Savings Bank v. Courtney Excavating & Construction, Inc. (In Re Courtney Excavating & Construction, Inc.) · filed 2005-06-03(b)(1)

In this matter, I find it is not a core proceeding and the resolution of this dispute will have no conceivable effect on the administration of the bankruptcy estate. I, therefore, do not have subject matter jurisdiction, and I will grant Acstar’s motion to dismiss.

Section 157 does not permit a bankruptcy court to adjudicate claims based on alleged violations of IRS internal policies when those claims are neither core matters nor related to a bankruptcy case.

Wood v. Commissioner (In Re Wood) · filed 2005-06-06(b)(2)

Moreover, this Court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate allegations that the IRS violated its internal policies and procedures because such allegations are neither core matters nor related to a case under title 11. 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), (b)(2).

Section 157(c)(1) requires a bankruptcy court to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court for non-core related matters.

Vozella v. Basel-Johnson (In Re Basel-Johnson) · filed 2007-04-17(c)(1)

As such, the Court must submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157 authorizes bankruptcy courts to hear and determine core proceedings and to hear, but not enter final judgment on, non-core proceedings related to a Title 11 case.

Ghee v. Retailers National Bank · filed 2008-03-27(b)(1), (c)(1)

The bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to hear and determine cases in three categories: (1) civil proceedings under Title 11, (2) core proceedings arising under Title 11, and (3) core proceedings arising in a case under Title 11. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1). ... A bankruptcy court also may hear, but not submit, a final judgment on non-core proceedings that are related to a case under Title 11. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). ... It cannot be convincingly argued that there is a legal or factual basis for concluding that the bankruptcy court erred by finding that the RICO claims were not a core bankruptcy proceeding or related to a core proceeding.

Section 157 distinguishes core proceedings from non-core proceedings and permits a bankruptcy court to hear a non-core proceeding under subsection (c)(1).

Raymond Professional Group, Inc. v. William A. Pope Co. (In Re Raymond Professional Group, Inc.) · filed 2008-04-09(c)(1), (b)(2)

The remaining Count 1 of Defendant’s Counterclaim is a non-core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). ... It does not fall within the non-exclusive list of core proceedings in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2), and does not invoke a substantive right provided by the Bankruptcy Code nor could it arise only in the context of Debtors’ bankruptcy cases.

Section 157(b) lets bankruptcy judges hear and determine core proceedings, while section 157(c) limits them to proposed findings and conclusions in non-core proceedings absent consent.

Costa v. Kitrell (In Re Balensweig) · filed 2008-04-10(b), (c)

Section 157(b) of title 28 of the United States Code sets forth the categories of proceedings arising under the Bankruptcy Code that Bankruptcy judges have jurisdiction to hear. ... The case law in this Circuit is clear— a prepetition cause of action for malpractice is not a “core” proceeding.

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

Laddin v. Belden (In Re Verilink Corp.) · filed 2009-04-09(c)(1)

Although Plaintiffs claims against Powell Goldstein are not “core” proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b), these claims could have been raised pursuant to the Court’s limited jurisdiction over non-core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), which permits bankruptcy courts to hear non-core, related claims.

Section 157(b) does not give a bankruptcy court core jurisdiction to decide a payment bond dispute between two creditors after their claims to estate property have been resolved.

Raymond Professional Group, Inc. v. William A. Pope Co. (In Re Raymond Professional Group, Inc.) · filed 2009-07-21(b)

The payment bond issue cannot be resolved as an issue under core jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157 does not permit a bankruptcy court to decide issues that neither arise under or in the Bankruptcy Code nor relate to the bankruptcy case.

In Re Boliaux · filed 2010-01-08(b), (c)

Core jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts lies in cases that arise under the Bankruptcy Code and in core proceedings in cases under the Bankruptcy Code. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). Related jurisdiction lies in proceedings that impact on bankruptcy. § 157(c). The impact of any fraud and wrongdoing claimed here is between the parties who filed the pleadings described above. The Chapter 7 trustee has not asserted an interest in these issues, and in this no-asset case the outcome of these issues cannot impact on the estate. The issues do not arise in or under the Code, and do not relate to the Boliaux bankruptcy. Consequently, no jurisdiction lies to consider those issues.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats orders to turn over estate property as core proceedings, while § 157(c)(1) governs non-core proceedings related to a bankruptcy case.

DII Northwest LLC v. Carey (In Re National Jockey Club) · filed 2011-03-03(b)(2)(E), (c)(1)

Count I is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E). Count II is a non-core related claim within in the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) since a judgment in favor of Plaintiff, if granted, would increase the pool of assets available to be distributed to creditors.

Section 157 classifies the conversion, avoidance, and claim-disallowance counts as core proceedings and the other counts as related proceedings.

Joseph v. Feit (In re Liberty Brands, LLC) · filed 2012-08-27(b)(2), (c)

This Court has core jurisdiction over the counts for conversion, avoidance of preferences, fraudulent conveyances, and the post-petition transfers, and disallowance of the Remaining Defendants’ claims. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334 & 157(b)(2)(A), (B), (E), (F) & (H). The Court has related to jurisdiction over the other counts of the Amended Complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c).

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear a non-core proceeding related to a bankruptcy case when its outcome could conceivably affect the estate.

In re U.S. Fidelis, Inc. · filed 2012-08-28(c)(1)

The Court has jurisdiction over a non-core proceeding if that proceeding is “related to” the bankruptcy case.

Section 157 treats the release of a nondebtor’s claim against another nondebtor as a related proceeding rather than a core proceeding.

Opt-Out Lenders v. Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC · filed 2017-03-17(b)(1)

The permanent release of a non-debtor, third-party’s claim against another non-debtor, third party — whether through a, chapter 11 plan or otherwise — is an exercise of the Bankruptcy Court’s “related to” jurisdiction.

Section 157(b)(2) identifies core bankruptcy proceedings, and claims based on state law that predate bankruptcy and exist independently of the bankruptcy are not core proceedings.

Hard Rock Exploration, Inc. and Blue Jacket Partnership · filed 2022-05-03(b)(2)

First, these claims are not based on any right expressly created by Title 11, nor are they specifically identified as core proceedings in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). ... Therefore, because the claims themselves did not “arise in” or “arise under” Title 11, they cannot be said be core proceedings.

Section 157(c)(2) requires the parties’ consent before a bankruptcy court may enter final judgment in a noncore, related proceeding.

State of Missouri ex rel. Attorney General Eric S. v. Ross · filed 2019-09-27(c)(2)

At best, the MMPA counts are related-to proceedings. As a result, this court would not be able to enter final judgment on those counts absent the State’s consent, which it did not expressly give in its Complaint,26 and to the extent its consent could have been implied early in the case, such consent has been withdrawn.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to enter nonfinal orders in noncore proceedings without submitting proposed findings to the district court; final orders must be entered by the district court.

Commerce Industry Insurance v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. (In Re Malden Mills Industries, Inc.) · filed 2002-05-10(c)(1)

The jurisdictional line is clear: non-final orders are entered in this Court without report to the District Court; final orders may only be entered by the District Court.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to compel arbitration in a non-core proceeding but reserves final orders and judgments for the district court.

Crysen/Montenay Energy Co. v. Shell Oil Co. (In Re Crysen/Montenay Energy Co.) · filed 1999-08-31(c)(1)

As a result, the bankruptcy judge’s enforcement of an arbitration clause under these circumstances does not even indirectly run afoul of 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), which prohibits a bankruptcy judge from entering a final order or judgment in a non-core proceeding.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear a noncore claim when its resolution affects administration of the debtor's estate.

Yukon Energy Corp. v. Brandon Investments · filed 1998-03-17(c)(1)

We conclude that the bankruptcy court properly exercised noncore jurisdiction over the fraud claim in this case because the resolution of that claim impacted the administration of Yukon's bankruptcy estate.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear a noncore claim whose outcome could affect administration of the debtor’s estate.

In Re: Yukon Energy Corporation, Debtor. Yukon Energy Corporation v. Brandon Investments, Inc., Charles Clayton, Kent Kn · filed 1998-03-17(c)(1)

We conclude that the bankruptcy court properly exercised noneore jurisdiction over ... the fraud claim in this case because the resolution of that claim impacted the administration of Yukon’s bankruptcy estate.

Section 157(c)(1) does not permit a bankruptcy judge to hear non-core claims against third parties when those claims cannot affect the bankruptcy estate.

In Re Cummings · filed 1998-02-25(c)(1)

Consequently, it appears that neither 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) nor 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) endows this Court with subject matter jurisdiction over those claims.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear a related non-core claim and submit proposed findings and conclusions for de novo review by the district court.

Robertson v. Isomedix, Inc. · filed 1994-06-27(c)(1)

Even if we assume, without deciding, that the antitrust claim is non-core, it nevertheless could have been asserted in the bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy court may hear non-core matters that are “related to a case under Title 11.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). Although the bankruptcy court does not have power to render a decision in non-core matters, the claim will be decided. The bankruptcy court may submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, which the district court reviews de novo.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear related noncore matters and submit proposed findings and conclusions for district court review de novo.

Robertson v. Isomedix, Inc. (In re Intl Nutronics, Inc.) · filed 1993-08-10(c)(1)

The bankruptcy court may hear noncore matters that are “related to a case under Title 11.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). But the bankruptcy court is not empowered to render a decision in noncore matters; rather, it submits proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, which the district court reviews de novo.

Section 157(c) treats a request to reduce a debt to judgment as a noncore proceeding for which the district court must enter judgment.

Follett v. Follett (In re Follett) · filed 1993-06-03(c)

However, the request to reduce the debt to judgment is a noncore proceeding, judgment for which must be entered by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c).

Section 157(c) requires the district court to enter judgment on a noncore request to reduce a debt to judgment.

Estate of Eckel v. Narciso (In re Narciso) · filed 1993-01-04(c)

After careful review of the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for entry of judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c) submitted by the bankruptcy court the Court adopts them in their entirety. ... The request to reduce the debt to judgment, however, is not a core proceeding, such that judgment must be entered by the district, court.

Section 157(c)(1) prevents a bankruptcy court from entering a final binding judgment in a proceeding merely related to a Title 11 case absent the defendants’ consent.

Worldwide Collection Services of Nevada, Inc. v. Aaron · filed 1992-12-03(c)(1)

It is equally clear that this is a civil proceeding merely related to a case under Title 11 and this Court is without jurisdiction to enter a final binding judgment absent consent by the Defendants by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) limits a bankruptcy court in a noncore proceeding to proposed findings and conclusions; plenary district court review can cure an erroneous final judgment.

In Re Parkside Building Co. Robert Steinberg, Bankruptcy Trustee v. Richard C. Hedreen, Elizabeth Hedreen · filed 1991-11-06(c)(1)

In core proceedings, a bankruptcy court may enter final judgment, while in noncore proceedings, the bankruptcy court may only submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court. Id. § 157(c)(1). Even if this were a noncore proceeding, we would not reverse here. ... Our review of the record reveals that the district court's review was plenary. Thus, the de novo review [would have] "effectively cured" the bankruptcy court's erroneous entry of final judgment.

Section 157 treats traditional common law breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims as noncore when they are merely related to a bankruptcy case; in such proceedings, the bankruptcy court may submit proposed findings and conclusions but may not enter a final judgment or order.

Baren v. Devon Bank (In Re Baren) · filed 1984-12-21(b)(2), (c)(1)

Although core proceedings are not limited to those defined within § 157(b)(2), the traditional common law claims for breach of fiduciary duty asserted by the Debtor unquestionably do not fall within the category of proceedings considered to be core to a bankruptcy case. This Court finds that although none of the three removed actions is a core proceeding, each is a proceeding “that is otherwise related to a case under Title 11.” Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), in such otherwise related proceedings this Court may only submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court and may not enter a judgment or final order.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear a non-core proceeding and submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court for final determination.

Ghen v. Branca (In Re Ghen) · filed 1985-01-24(c)(1)

While we determine that the proceeding in question is a non-core proceeding, we are authorized to hear such an action and submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court for final determination. 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to hear a non-core related proceeding and submit proposed findings, conclusions, and a judgment to the district court.

Cristol v. Western Book Distributors (In Re Schear & Associates, Inc.) · filed 1985-02-04(c)(1)

This is a non-core related matter as to which the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to hear evidence and prepare proposed findings, conclusions and a judgment for the consideration of the District Court. 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157(c)(1) allows a bankruptcy judge to hear a related non-core proceeding but requires the judge to submit proposed findings and conclusions to a district judge.

Ross v. General Plastic & Chemical Corp. (In Re Auto-Pak, Inc.) · filed 1985-03-17(c)(1)

In any event, even if this were a non-core proceeding, that fact would not deprive this Court of jurisdiction but would merely mean that this Court could hear the matter but would have to submit proposed findings and conclusions to a district court judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157 requires a bankruptcy judge to submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court in a related proceeding when the parties have not consented to a final decision by the bankruptcy judge.

In Re Arrow Huss, Inc. · filed 1985-08-01(c)(1)

Bankruptcy judges may hear and determine all "core” proceedings “arising under” Title 11, or "arising in a case” under Title 11, but may not enter dispositive orders in "related” proceedings without the consent of the parties.

Section 157(c)(1) permits bankruptcy judges to hear non-core proceedings but requires them to submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court for final judgment.

Windsor Communications Group, Inc. v. Five Towns Stationery, Inc. (In Re Windsor Communications Group, Inc.) · filed 1985-09-18(c)(1)

They may also hear “non-core” matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) (1984). However, in “non-core” proceedings, the bankruptcy judge must submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court for entry of final judgment.

Section 157 makes core or related status relevant to whether a bankruptcy judge may enter a final order or must submit findings and conclusions to the district court.

Aaronics Equipment Rentals & Sales, Inc. v. Haynes (In Re Aaronics Equipment Rentals & Sales, Inc.) · filed 1985-10-11

Classification of a proceeding as a related proceeding or as a core proceeding has no relationship whatever to the jurisdiction of the Court. That classification merely has relevance to a determination of whether the bankruptcy judge issues a final order or whether the bankruptcy judge issues findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which the district court enters a final order after appropriate proceedings.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear a related non-core proceeding and submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court.

McGraw v. Liberty Airlines, Inc. (In re Bell & Beckwith) · filed 1985-12-10(c)(1)

These statutes also provide that a Bankruptcy Judge is empowered to hear a non-core case which is related to a case under Title 11, and to submit findings of fact and conclusions of law to the District Court.

Section 157 limits a bankruptcy judge in a referred noncore proceeding to proposed findings and conclusions unless the parties consent to a final order; the district judge enters the final judgment.

Goldrich v. New York State Higher Education Services Corp. (In Re Goldrich) · filed 1984-11-21(c)

Except in “core proceedings”, as that term is defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2), the bankruptcy judge may not enter a final order unless the parties consent thereto. The judge’s power is limited to submitting proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the District Court. Any final order or judgment is to be entered by the district judge.

Section 157(c)(2) permits parties to give their consent in bankruptcy court for a bankruptcy judge to enter a final order in a related non-core proceeding.

K-ROM Construction Corp. v. Behling (In Re K-ROM Construction Corp.) · filed 1985-02-21(c)(2)

Section 157(c)(2) is silent as to the time or place where the required consent must occur. ... Accordingly, the consent by all of the parties to the entry of a final order by a bankruptcy judge was validly placed on the record in the bankruptcy court when this non-core case was commenced.

Section 157(c)(1) permits bankruptcy courts to enter interlocutory orders in noncore proceedings without submitting them to the district court.

Elkins v. X-Alpha Int'l, Ltd. (In Re Kennedy) · filed 1985-04-24(c)(1)

While not defined, Congress’ use of the familiar legal expression “final order” connotes its intent that the words be given their usual legal meaning and bankruptcy interlocutory orders in noncore proceedings need not be submitted to District Court.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear a proceeding related to a bankruptcy case, while the district court determines it.

English v. Davis (In Re English) · filed 1985-04-30(c)(1)

This court concludes that the present proceeding is “related to” the bankruptcy case (Nexus No. 3 exists), that the district court has jurisdiction to “determine” it, and that this court has statutory authority to “hear” it pursuant to § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) permits bankruptcy courts to hear non-core proceedings related to a bankruptcy case, but without the parties’ consent they may submit only proposed findings and conclusions to the district court.

Table Talk, Inc. v. Table Talk Pie Distributors of Poughkeepsie, Inc. (In Re Table Talk, Inc.) · filed 1985-05-16(c)(1)

Under the Emergency Rules in effect at the time the amended complaint was filed, and subsequently under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), bankruptcy courts may hear non-core proceedings which are “related to” cases under Title 11. The power of the bankruptcy court is limited, however, in that, absent the consent of the parties, the court may submit only proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court, rather than a final order or judgment.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear a noncore proceeding related to a bankruptcy case, but requires proposed findings and conclusions for the district court's final determination.

Unique Catering, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. · filed 1985-05-20(c)(1)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), a bankruptcy judge may hear a proceeding that is not a “core proceeding,” but that is “otherwise related to a case under title 11.” When a bankruptcy judge presides over a case pursuant to Section 157(c)(1), “the bankruptcy judge shall submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court,” and the court will make the final determination on the merits.

Section 157(c) permits a bankruptcy judge to enter a final order in a non-core proceeding when all parties consent.

In re Whatley · filed 1985-04-11(c)

Although this proceeding would be denominated as a “non-core” proceeding as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(c), the two creditors and all of the debtors have consented to trial before this Court, as well as, that this Court might enter a final order following said trial ap-pealable at the election of any of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear a related non-core proceeding and submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court.

Matter of Boughton · filed 1985-05-21(c)(1)

Consequently, this court may retain jurisdiction of the case and, at its conclusion, issue proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) reserves final judgment in a non-core proceeding to the district court, which considers the bankruptcy judge’s proposed findings and conclusions.

Windsor Communications Group, Inc. v. Grant · filed 1985-06-19(c)(1)

The motion was then referred to this court for a final determination pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). That provision establishes that a Bankruptcy Judge may not enter a final judgment in a “non-core” proceeding as defined by the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984, Pub.L. No. 98-353 (1984). Judgment in such non-core proceedings may only be entered by the district court although that court considers the proposed findings and conclusions of the Bankruptcy Judge who has heard the proceeding.

Section 157 generally prevents a bankruptcy judge from entering a final order in a non-core proceeding and subjects the judge’s proposed ruling to de novo review by a district judge.

Barry v. Pierce (In Re Atlantic Energy, Inc.) · filed 1985-06-21(c)(1)

The court believes that jury trials should only be conducted on core matters. In most situations involving a non-core matter, a bankruptcy judge may not enter a final order. This non-final order along with the jury verdict would be subject to “review de novo” [(whatever that means)] upon appeal to a district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5)(e)(l). It would therefore appear to be an exercise in futility for a bankruptcy court to conduct a jury trial on a non-core matter.

Section 157(c)(1) does not require a bankruptcy judge to submit an interlocutory partial summary judgment ruling to a district judge for entry as a final order or judgment.

United States MacHine Tools, Inc. v. First Union Commercial Corp. (In Re United States MacHine Tools, Inc.) · filed 1985-06-19(c)(1)

The ruling contained herein is interlocutory as it determines a motion for partial summary judgment and does not finally dispose of the entire proceeding. The ruling would not be a final judgment for the purposes of Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). ... I assume that § 157(c)(1) is to be similarly construed, and this ruling, accordingly, will not be submitted to a district judge for entry as a final order or judgment.

Section 157(c) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear a related noncore proceeding, but requires the parties’ consent before the judge can enter a dispositive order.

Climate Control Engineers, Inc. v. Southern Landmark, Inc. (In Re Climate Control Engineers, Inc.) · filed 1985-07-09(c)

This Section permits a Bankruptcy Judge to hear a proceeding that is not a “core” proceeding, but which is otherwise “related” to a case under Title 11, albeit absent consent of the parties, the Bankruptcy Judge cannot enter a disposi-tive order.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear a noncore turnover claim seeking to liquidate a debtor’s prepetition contract right to payment and submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court.

Palmisano v. Briggs (In Re Northern Design Inc.) · filed 1985-07-19(c)(1)

Under title 28, section 157(c)(1), this court may hear the trustee’s turnover complaint, and submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the District Court.

Section 157(c)(1) treats bankruptcy contempt proceedings as related proceedings, with the bankruptcy judge submitting proposed findings for the district court’s final adjudication.

Omega Equipment Corp. v. John C. Louis Co. (In Re Omega Equipment Corp.) · filed 1985-07-19(c)(1)

The Court holds that a contempt proceeding in bankruptcy cases must be deemed a “related” proceeding for purposes of the Emergency Rule and the Bankruptcy Act as amended.

Section 157(c) grants bankruptcy courts ancillary jurisdiction over noncore proceedings with a reasonable nexus to a title 11 case.

Cook v. United States (In Re Earl Roggenbuck Farms, Inc.) · filed 1985-08-08(c)

In our opinion, 28 U.S.C. § 157(c) is, in effect, a statutory grant of ancillary jurisdiction.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to hear a matter and enter a final order with the parties’ consent, which may be implied from a failure to object timely.

Alloy Metal Wire Works, Inc. v. Associated Screw & Manufacturing Co. (In Re Alloy Metal Wire Works, Inc.) · filed 1985-08-13(c)(2)

We alternatively have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2) which allows us to hear matters and enter final orders with the consent of the parties. The parties have implicitly consented to our jurisdiction by failing to raise a timely objection.

Absent consent, a bankruptcy judge recommends disposition of a remand request, and the district court enters the remand order.

Hillyard Farms v. White County Bank · filed 1985-09-12(c)(1)

For these reasons the Court agrees with the bankruptcy judge below that, absent consent, all remand orders pursuant to § 1425(b) be entered by this Court with the bankruptcy judge rendering his recommendation as contemplated in 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157(c) limits a bankruptcy court in a related proceeding to proposed findings and conclusions for the district court unless the parties consent to the bankruptcy court entering orders and judgments.

Equimark Commercial Finance Co. v. Novachich (In Re Showcase Natural Casing Co.) · filed 1985-09-23(c)

Those matters within the federal bankruptcy jurisdiction now, in accordance with the terms of 28 U.S.C. § 157, are divided into “core proceedings” (§ 157(b)), and related proceedings (§ 157(c)). There is no doubt that the present proceeding is of the latter kind. We may therefore only submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court upon which that court may enter an order, unless, of course, pursuant to § 157(c)(2), the parties to the proceeding consent to a reference to us to hear and determine and enter appropriate orders. and judgments.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear a proceeding related to a bankruptcy case and submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court.

Fleet v. United States Consumer Council, Inc. (In Re Fleet) · filed 1985-10-15(c)(1)

For all of the above reasons, we hold that the District Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) and we may hear the proceeding and make proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(2) treats the absence of a timely objection as consent to the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over a related proceeding.

Doyle v. Paolino (In Re Energy Savings Center, Inc.) · filed 1985-10-22(c)(2)

Absence of a timely objection to jurisdiction is deemed consent under § 157(c)(2). The matter before us is a related matter to which no party has objected to our jurisdiction, and thus, we have jurisdiction.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment in a related noncore proceeding only with the consent of all parties.

D'Orio v. Town of East Haddam (In re D'Orio) · filed 1985-12-06(c)(2)

This is a proceeding related to the bankruptcy case and thus within the jurisdictional grant of 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b), but it is clear that this matter is not a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2), and a final judgment can be entered by this court only with the consent of all parties.

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

Roth v. H.R. Philipsborn & Co. (In Re Roth) · filed 1986-01-07(c)(2)

The parties through their respective counsel have stipulated that this cause be tried to final judgment by this Court. Since this cause is related to a Bankruptcy case pending herein, this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties.

Section 157(c)(1) requires a bankruptcy judge hearing a related non-core proceeding without the parties’ consent to submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court for a final decision.

Matter of Kalpana Electronics, Inc. · filed 1986-02-26(c)(1)

This is not a core proceeding, but is otherwise related to a case under Title 11. The parties have not consented to letting me hear and determine the issues. ... Only if a matter is a core proceeding may the bankruptcy court make a final determination.

In a related proceeding, parties may consent to a bankruptcy court’s final judgment and waive proposed findings for the district court.

Central National Bank of San Angelo v. Jones (In Re Jones) · filed 1986-03-11(c)(1)

The instant interpleader action is a “related” proceeding as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). The Bank, the Trustee and Cass (the remaining parties to this proceeding after defaults and disclaimers) have consented to the entry of a Final Judgment by this Court and have affirmatively waived their right under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) to require the Bankruptcy Judge to submit proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to the District Court.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear an otherwise related noncore proceeding and issue proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Gallo v. Herpich (In Re Cemetery Development Corp.) · filed 1986-03-19(c)(1)

Under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) and Local Rule 29, the undersigned bankruptcy judge will hear this “otherwise related proceeding” and will issue proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy judge to enter final judgment in a non-core proceeding with the parties’ consent, which the court inferred from their conduct.

Churchill Cabinet Co. v. Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Co. (In Re Destron, Inc.) · filed 1986-04-03(c)(2)

Since the Court now grants Continental’s motion for summary judgment, it is assumed that Continental consents under § 157(c)(2). Thus, the parties are deemed to have consented to the court’s jurisdiction and, pursuant to § 157(c)(2), this court can enter a final order and judgment subject to review by the district court under § 158.

Section 157(c)(1) limits a bankruptcy court handling a noncore proceeding without the parties’ consent to a hearing and proposed findings and conclusions for the district court’s final determination.

Reda, Inc. v. Harris Trust & Savings Bank (In Re Reda, Inc.) · filed 1986-04-29(c)(1)

However, unless the parties consent to having the conversion count fully and finally resolved by this Court, this Court’s jurisdiction over the matter is limited to conducting a hearing and submitting proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court for its final determination on the merits. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear a related proceeding but requires it to submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court rather than enter final judgment.

Taxel v. Veri-Fone, Inc. (In Re American Manufacturing Technologies, Inc.) · filed 1986-05-07(c)(1)

However, this Court finds that it possesses subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), which sections permit the Bankruptcy Court to hear “related proceedings”, but requires submission to the District Court of proposed findings and conclusions rather than the entry of a final judgment by the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to hear and determine a related proceeding when the parties consent.

Hein v. Bobbitt (In Re Hein) · filed 1986-05-16(c)(2)

The parties have consented to jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2) by written stipulation. Accordingly, this court will enter an appropriate order, subject to review under 28 U.S.C. § 158.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy judge to hear a related, non-core contract or warranty claim, but the district court must finally decide it absent the parties’ consent.

Wyandotte Industries v. E.Y. Neill & Co. (In Re First Hartford Corp.) · filed 1986-07-28(c)

Because we find that this adversary proceeding is a related one which can be finally adjudicated only by the district court, we need not determine the constitutional reach of this court’s jurisdiction.

Section 157(c)(1) requires the district judge to make the ruling in a related, noncore foreclosure proceeding; the bankruptcy judge’s role is advisory.

In Re Memorial Estates, Inc., Debtor. Appeal of Cemco, Inc · filed 1986-09-08(c)(1)

The bankruptcy judge himself could not appoint the receiver, because the foreclosure suit was collateral to the bankruptcy — a “related” rather than “core” bankruptcy case — so that the actual rulings had to be made by the district judge, with the bankruptcy judge’s role being advisory. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157 requires a bankruptcy judge to submit findings and conclusions to the district court in noncore proceedings, including matters involving mandatory abstention.

In Re Corporacion Servicios Medicos Hospitalarios Fajardo · filed 1986-11-10(c)

In other cases the bankruptcy judge can do no more than "submit findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court." 28 U.S.C. Sec. 157(c).

Section 157 limits a bankruptcy judge in noncore proceedings to submitting proposed findings and conclusions to the district court.

Corporacion de Servicios Medicos Hospitalarios de Fajardo v. Mora · filed 1986-11-10(c)

In other cases the bankruptcy judge can do no more than “submit findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(c).

Section 157(c)(1) provides for district court determination of a non-core proceeding upon a bankruptcy judge’s recommendation.

Williams v. AT & T Technologies, Inc. (In Re Silver Wheel Freightlines, Inc.) · filed 1986-10-23(c)(1)

This is a non-core proceeding which may be determined by the District Court upon recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

In a non-core proceeding, the bankruptcy court submits findings and conclusions to the district court and cannot enter a final order without the parties’ consent.

Northwest Pipe & Casing Co. v. Standard Wholesale Supply Co. (In re Northwest Pipe & Casing Co.) · filed 1986-10-31(c)

In fact, absent consent of the parties, the Bankruptcy Court lacks jurisdiction to enter a final Order in this non-core proceeding. In non-core proceedings, the Bankruptcy Court prepares Findings and Conclusions for submission to the District Court. The District Court reviews the Findings and enters a final Order. 28 U.S.C.A. § 157(c) (West Supp.1986).

Section 157(c)(1) calls for a bankruptcy judge in a related proceeding to submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court for final determination.

District 2, United Mine Workers of America Ex Rel. Gormish v. Hinks · filed 1986-12-11(c)(1)

We further find that this adversary proceeding constitutes a related matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), and we will therefore submit our proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to the district court for a final determination.

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

In Re Southern Industrial Banking Corporation, Debtor. Thomas Duvoisin, Liquidating Trustee, and Bank of Commerce, Inter · filed 1987-01-22(c)(2)

We would characterize the present case as a non-core but “related” proceeding covered by 28 U.S.G. § 157(c)(2), with both parties consenting. A related proceeding with the consent of all parties functionally has the same effect as a core proceeding, permitting the bankruptcy court to entertain jurisdiction over the matter and to enter a final judgment, order, or decree.

Under the opinion’s reading of § 157, all parties’ consent permits a district court to refer a proceeding related to a bankruptcy case to a bankruptcy judge.

Cemco, Inc. v. Howard National Corp. (In Re Howard National Corp.) · filed 1987-01-23(a)(2)

There is a narrow exception to this general rule carved out in bankruptcy courts where jurisdiction may be conferred by consent of the parties. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a)(2), the 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." Clearly, this exception is inapplicable here.

Section 157(c) allows a bankruptcy court to finally decide a non-core proceeding only with the parties’ consent.

Langenkamp v. Antiques, Inc. (In Re Tureaud) · filed 1987-03-03(c)(1)-(2)

The “equitable” or core proceeding can be finally determined by this Court sitting without a jury; but the non-core or “legal” proceedings cannot be finally determined by this Court, with or without a jury, absent consent of the parties which has not been given, 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), (2).

An adversary proceeding to collect a debtor’s unpaid sales balance and resolve the buyer’s counterclaims is non-core under § 157(b)(2).

Wiencken v. Mill-Rite Sash & Door Co. (In Re Empire Pacific Industries, Inc.) · filed 1987-03-13(b)(2)

This is a non-core proceeding according to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

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

Stardust Inn, Inc. v. Doshi (In Re Stardust Inn, Inc.) · filed 1987-03-09(c)(2)

Although the case is a related proceeding, at trial the parties consented to the entry of a final judgment by the bankruptcy court. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2).

Section 157(c)(1) allows bankruptcy courts to enter interlocutory orders in noncore proceedings.

Earle Industries, Inc. v. Circuit Engineering, Inc. (In Re Earle Industries, Inc.) · filed 1987-04-07(c)(1)

Even in noncore matters, bankruptcy courts have the power to enter interlocutory orders, for 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) refers only to district courts entering “any final order of judgment.”

Section 157(c)(2) permits consent to a bankruptcy judge’s authority over a related proceeding to be implied from a party’s failure to object.

In Re: Daniels-Head & Associates · filed 1987-06-15(c)(2)

The 1984 Act, on the other hand, does not, on its face, require explicit consent. The fact that Congress failed to include any provision for explicit consent in the 1984 Act indicates that consent implied from the parties' actions is sufficient. ... We hold that appellant's failure to object to the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction constitutes consent to that jurisdiction.

Section 157(c)(2) permits consent to a bankruptcy court's authority over a related proceeding to be implied from a party's failure to object to its jurisdiction.

Daniels-Head & Associates v. William M. Mercer, Inc. · filed 1987-06-15(c)(2)

We hold that appellant's failure to object to the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction constitutes consent to that jurisdiction.

Section 157(c)(1) requires a bankruptcy judge to submit proposed findings and conclusions for a final order in a related proceeding, but permits the judge to issue an interlocutory preliminary injunction order.

Guy C. Long, Inc. v. Dependable Insurance Co. (In Re Guy C. Long, Inc.) · filed 1987-06-19(c)(1)

After hearing a related proceeding, a bankruptcy must submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court which considers the proposed findings and conclusions and then enters a final order or judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). This case is still in the preliminary stages as the plaintiffs seek only a preliminary injunction. Since a preliminary injunction is an interlocutory order, not a final order, I need not submit proposed findings to the district court; I may issue an order granting or denying the preliminary injunction.

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

Begier v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States (In Re A.I.A. Industries, Inc.) · filed 1987-08-13(c)(1)

Finally, since these matters are to be considered as non-core in nature, we must submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court.

Section 157(b)(1) does not authorize a bankruptcy court to enter a nonappealable remand order; the bankruptcy court must instead make findings and recommendations to the district court.

Walsh v. Brush (In Re Walsh) · filed 1987-10-07(b)(1)

The bankruptcy court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to enter an order to remand, as such an order is not appeal-able. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(1) and 1452(b); In re Newman, 61 B.R. 27, 29 (Bkrtcy.D.N.M.1986). The bankruptcy court determined that it should make findings and recommendations to this Court. This Court agrees with the bankruptcy court’s determination on this point.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy judge to enter binding orders and judgments in a related proceeding when all parties consent and the district court refers it.

Kwiat v. Doucette · filed 1987-11-23(c)(2)

The reason for the Court’s restraint is the parties’ expressed willingness here to consent to the Bankruptcy Court’s exercise of jurisdiction to render binding orders, subject to appellate review by this Court. ... Accordingly, consistent with the parties expressed consent, the matter of the abuse of process counterclaim will be remanded to the Bankruptcy Court for adjudication on the merits as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Section 157(c)(2) allows a bankruptcy court to determine a noncore proceeding when all parties implicitly agree that it may do so.

Windsor Communications Group, Inc. v. Metropolitan Consolidated Industries, Inc. (In Re Windsor Communications Group, In · filed 1987-12-15(c)(2)

Although this proceeding clearly could not be characterized, like many others associated with this bankruptcy case, as a “garden-variety accounts receivable proceeding,” ... and hence does not appear to be a core proceeding, the implicit agreement of all of the parties that this Court may determine the matter authorizes us to do so. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2).

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy judge to enter final judgment in a related non-core proceeding when the parties consent; failure to object can constitute implied consent.

Bankr. L. Rep. P 72,126 in Re Men's Sportswear, Inc., F/k/a Claude Clement, Ltd., Debtor. Men's Sportswear, Inc. v. Sass · filed 1987-11-27(c)(2)

However, we need not resolve this issue, for even if the instant action was not a “core” proceeding, 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2) empowers the bankruptcy court to enter final judgment in a “non-core” but “related” matter, providing both parties consent to the court’s jurisdiction. ... We determine that Sasson impliedly consented to the bankruptcy court’s assumption of “core” jurisdiction, and thus the district court correctly reviewed that court’s findings under the “clearly erroneous” standard.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to fully try a non-core proceeding when the parties consent.

Posey v. Bank of Shaw (In Re Posey) · filed 1987-12-09(c)(2)

This is a non-core proceeding as discussed in 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), but the parties have consented that this proceeding might be fully tried in this Court as contemplated in 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2), subject to appellate review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy judge to decide a proceeding related to a bankruptcy case when all parties consent.

In the Matter of Majestic Energy Corporation, Debtor. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Majestic Energy Corporati · filed 1988-01-04(c)(2)

Further, placement of that jurisdiction in the bankruptcy court in this case is proper because all parties consented to the bankruptcy judge deciding the matter.

Section 157(c)(2) requires the consent of every party before a non-core proceeding may be referred to a bankruptcy judge; one defendant’s answer does not supply consent for the others.

World Solar Corp. v. Steinbaum (In Re World Solar Corp.) · filed 1988-01-06(c)(2)

Clearly, however, § 157(c)(2) refers to the consent of all parties by its plain language, not just some of the parties.

Section 157(c)(2) allows parties to a non-core proceeding to consent to final adjudication by the bankruptcy court.

Jennings v. Coblentz (In Re Jennings) · filed 1988-02-29(c)(2)

It is this court’s view that 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334 and 157 properly allow litigants in a non-core proceeding to consent to a final adjudication by the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to issue dispositive rulings in related proceedings when all parties consent.

Cooper v. California Consolidated Enterprises, Inc. (In Re Carolina Motor Express, Inc.) · filed 1988-03-16(c)(2)

The Court notes from the record in these proceedings that all parties agreed to have the Court issue dispositive rulings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 157(c)(2).

Section 157(c)(1) requires a bankruptcy judge to submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court in a noncore related proceeding.

Matter of Tvorik · filed 1988-03-17(c)(1)

The cause of action brought by the Trustee against the Defendants to obtain a rescission of the prepetition sale of the business assets and to recover damages based upon fraud in the inducement under State law is a noncore related proceeding. This Court will therefore make recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law and submit such recommendations to the district court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), Bankruptcy Rule 9033, and United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan Local Rule 66.

Section 157(c)(1) requires a bankruptcy judge hearing a related, non-core proceeding to submit proposed findings and conclusions for the district court to enter final judgment.

Fleet v. Rhode (In Re Fleet) · filed 1988-07-07(c)(1)

The parties agree that this is a non-core, related proceeding, consistent with the conclusions of Judge King in his Opinion of October 15, 1985, in the Primary Action. See 53 B.R. at 837-38. Consequently, although we have jurisdiction to hear this matter, we must submit Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to the district court in order that it may enter the final order or judgment in this proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear a related noncore proceeding, but not to enter a final order.

Unr Industries, Inc. v. American Mutual Liability Insurance · filed 1988-09-30(c)(1)

This Court has jurisdiction to hear this proceeding under both 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) and Judge Hart’s April 10, 1986 referral, but it does not have jurisdiction to enter a final order.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to determine related non-core claims when the parties consent.

Koresko v. Chase Manhattan Financial Services, Inc. (In Re Koresko) · filed 1988-11-04(c)(2)

This stipulation reduces our burden to that of merely ascertaining whether these claims are “related” or not because, whether or not they are non-core, we are thus empowered to determine them.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to hear and determine a proceeding when the parties expressly consent; the court found express consent in their pleadings and conduct.

Stewart v. Credithrift of America Consumer Discount Co. (In Re Stewart) · filed 1988-12-08(c)(2)

Such a position is, we believe, an “express consent” that we determine this proceeding even in the face of the restrictive language of B.Rule 7012(b).

Section 157(c)(2) allows consent to final bankruptcy court adjudication of an otherwise non-core proceeding to be implied from a defendant’s counterclaim or proof of claim against the debtor or estate.

Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Frates (In Re Kaiser Steel Corp.) · filed 1989-01-16(c)(2)

In summary, this Court concludes that pursuant to Schor and Thomas, supra, the consent referred to in 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2) need not be express and can be manifested by a defendant in an otherwise non-core proceeding commenced in the bankruptcy case seeking relief against the debtor or the debtor’s estate by the filing of a counterclaim or proof of claim.

Section 157(c)(1) provides for a bankruptcy judge to submit proposed findings and conclusions in noncore proceedings, subject to district court review.

Chambers v. Marathon Home Loans (In Re Marathon Home Loans) · filed 1989-01-18(c)(1)

Some of the claims are “noncore” matters that are tried by the bankruptcy court with proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law then forwarded to the district court for review, which includes de novo review of matters to which a party objects.

Section 157(c)(2) requires all parties’ consent before a bankruptcy judge may decide a related proceeding, and consent should not be inferred when a party repeatedly objects.

In Re MSV, Inc. · filed 1989-03-22(c)(2)

The statute states that before the Bankruptcy Judge may assert jurisdiction over a related proceeding, he must have "the consent of all the parties to the proceeding." Id. ... Given the circumstances of this case, the Court does not feel that it is appropriate to infer BOB's consent to the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction over MSV's "related" breach of contract claim.

Section 157(c)(2) requires all parties’ consent for a bankruptcy judge to decide a related, non-core claim; repeated objections prevent consent from being inferred.

M.S.V., Inc. v. Bank of Boston, Western Massachusetts, N.A. (In re M.S.V., Inc.) · filed 1989-03-22(c)(2)

The statute states that before the Bankruptcy Judge may assert jurisdiction over a related proceeding, he must have “the consent, of all the parties to the proceeding.” ... Given the circumstances of this case, the Court does not feel that it is appropriate to infer BOB’s consent to the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over MSV’s “related” breach of contract claim.

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

Luper v. Banner Industries, Inc. (In Re Lee Way Holding Co.) · filed 1989-06-21(c)(1)

The Court may still retain its jurisdiction to hear and to consider the claims under the sixth claim for relief if those claims are otherwise related to a case under Title 11. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). ... Accordingly, the Court finds that the plaintiffs’ sixth claim or relief, while a non-core proceeding, is related to this case under Title 11, and over which this Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction.

In a noncore proceeding under § 157(c)(1), the bankruptcy court issues recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Aramowicz v. Bridges (In re Diamond Mortgage Corp.) · filed 1989-07-12(c)(1)

This is a noncore proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). The following constitutes the Court’s recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Section 157(c)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to hear and determine a matter with the parties’ express consent.

Saint Joseph's Hospital v. Department of Public Welfare of Pennsylvania (In Re Saint Joseph's Hospital) · filed 1989-08-21(c)(2)

Therefore, the parties have irrevocably expressly consented that we hear and determine this matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2); B.Rule 7012(b); and In re St. Mary Hospital, Bonner v. Hiser, 101 B.R. 451, 454, 457-58 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1989).

Section 157(c)(1) requires a bankruptcy court in a related proceeding without party consent to submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court for final judgment.

Butler MacHinery, Inc. v. Haugen (In Re Haugen Construction Services, Inc.) · filed 1989-09-15(c)(1)

Section 157(c)(1) of United States Code Title 28 provides that when the parties have not consented to the bankruptcy court entering a final order for judgment the bankruptcy court shall submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the District Court for entry of ... final judgment.

Section 157(c)(1) governs noncore proceedings related to a bankruptcy case.

Aramowicz v. Bridges (In Re Diamond Mortgage Corp.) · filed 1989-09-15(c)(1)

This is a noncore proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) requires a bankruptcy judge in a related, noncore proceeding to submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court, which enters any final judgment.

J.T. Moran Financial Corp. v. Phonetel Technologies, Inc. (In Re J.T. Moran Financial Corp.) · filed 1990-10-05(c)(1)

In the instant case, this court may not enter a summary judgment for the basic jurisdictional reason that a bankruptcy court may not enter any final order or judgment in a proceeding that is not a core proceeding, but is otherwise related to a. case under title 11. In such a proceeding 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) prescribes that the bankruptcy judge 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 district court.

Section 157(c)(1) requires a bankruptcy judge in a noncore related proceeding to submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court for final judgment.

J.T. Moran Financial Corp. v. Phonetel Technologies, Inc. (In Re J.T. Moran Financial Corp.) · filed 1991-02-13(c)(1)

In the instant case, this court may not enter a summary judgment for the basic jurisdictional reason that a bankruptcy court may not enter any final order or judgment in a proceeding that is not a core proceeding, but is otherwise related to a case under title 11. In such a proceeding 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) prescribes that the bankruptcy judge 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 district court.

Section 157(c)(1) limits a bankruptcy judge in a non-core proceeding to submitting proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for the district court’s de novo review.

Clayter v. Larkin (In Re Clayter) · filed 1994-10-05(c)(1)

Furthermore, since the Court has determined that these claims are “non-core” proceedings, this Court would not enter final orders and would be limited to submitting proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court for its de novo review, causing further duplication and judicial inefficiency.

Section 157(c) requires a bankruptcy judge to submit noncore proceedings for district court review unless all parties consent to final adjudication by the bankruptcy judge.

Fidelity National Title Insurance v. Franklin (In Re Franklin) · filed 1995-03-31(c)

Fourteen of the fifteen counts in the complaint are noncore matters that the bankruptcy court cannot “hear and determine” without consent of all parties; instead, it must prepare a report and recommendation for de novo review in the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c).

Section 157(c)(1)’s limit on final orders in noncore proceedings does not prevent a bankruptcy judge from issuing an interlocutory injunction.

Celotex Corp. v. Edwards · filed 1995-04-19(c)(1)

Thus, the Bankruptcy Court did not lack jurisdiction under § 157(c)(1) to issue the Section 105 Injunction because that injunction was not a “final order or judgment.”

Section 157 prevents a bankruptcy judge from entering final judgment in a related proceeding without the consent of all parties.

State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Park (In Re Si Yeon Park, Ltd.) · filed 1996-07-23(c)(1)

Thus, absent consent of all parties, the bankruptcy court cannot enter a final judgment in this adversary proceeding.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to decide motions in a noncore proceeding under the district court’s referral, even without the defendant’s consent to entry of judgment.

Rice v. Golf Enterprises, Inc. (In re McElhanon) · filed 1997-03-17(a), (b)

Although this is not a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b), and the defendant has not consented to entry of judgment by this Court, the Court has jurisdiction to decide these motions, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(a), 1334.

Section 157(b)(3) and (c)(1) govern the classification and handling of related, noncore bankruptcy proceedings.

Donato v. Metropolitan Life Insurance · filed 1999-01-12(b)(3), (c)(1)

Donato’s action is a related, noncore proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(3) and (c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) requires a bankruptcy court in a noncore related proceeding, absent consent, to submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court for final adjudication.

Lozano v. Swift Energy Co. (In Re Wright) · filed 1999-03-17(c)(1)

Like the litigation at issue in Branded Products, this proceeding is a “related to” matter in which the bankruptcy court may not enter any final order absent the consent of both parties. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c). Stone has indicated that he will not consent to the final adjudication of this matter by this court. Thus, if this court retains the case and hears the matter, it would be required to “submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court.” Id. The district court may then enter final orders after reviewing the bankruptcy court’s proposals and conclusions, and after reviewing de novo those matters to which any party has specifically objected. Id.

Section 157(c)(1) limits a bankruptcy court in noncore proceedings to proposed findings and conclusions; it may not enter judgment.

Tenet Healthcare Corp. v. Williams (In Re Allegheny Health, Education & Research Foundation) · filed 1999-05-06(c)(1)

Therefore, and because this Court may not enter orders and judgments in noncore proceedings, see 28 U.S.C.A. § 157(c)(1) (West 1993), the Court must necessarily interpret paragraph 17 of its October 1, 1998 order as encompassing only those assets the title to which are not in dispute.

Section 157(c)(1) limits a bankruptcy court to proposed findings and recommendations on noncore claims while permitting final rulings on core claims.

Spookyworld, Inc. v. Town of Berlin (In Re Spookyworld, Inc.) · filed 2001-08-02(c)(1)

In light of the preceding analysis, this Court rules that it does not have the jurisdiction to finally determine the Defendants’ instant motion for summary judgment, with respect to any of the claims, save only those arising under § 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. This Court will, therefore, make rulings on the latter, but only proposed findings of fact and law and recommendations as to disposition of the former, in conformity with § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to consider dispositive motions in a noncore proceeding, but the judge must submit a proposed ruling to the district court for entry of a final order.

Blackwell v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP (In Re Blackwell) · filed 2002-06-27(c)(1)

So long as the reference remains with the bankruptcy judge, then, motions to dismiss and other dispositive motions should and will be considered by this court. As and when the court reaches a conclusion with respect to such motions, it will prepare a report and recommendation for submission to the district court, requesting entry of a final order thereon, and affording the parties the opportunity to timely and specifically object, as provided in section 157(c)(1).

Section 157 limits bankruptcy courts to making recommendations to the district court in non-core, related-to proceedings.

In Re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Products Liability Litigation · filed 2004-09-03(c)(1)

The bankruptcy court can only make recommendations to the district court in "related to" or non-core cases.

Section 157(c)(1) does not authorize a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment in a related proceeding without the parties’ consent.

Gentry Steel Fabrication, Inc. v. Howard S. Wright Construction Co. (In Re Gentry Steel Fabrication, Inc.) · filed 2005-05-02(c)(1)

However, because this is a “related to” proceeding, a bankruptcy court does not have authority to enter a final judgment absent the consent of the parties.

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

Bohm v. Horsley Co. (In Re Groggel) · filed 2005-11-10(c)

Therefore, the Court holds once again that each of the Trustee’s claims against Hors-ley constitute noncore matters, which means, in turn, that the Court may enter final orders and judgments regarding such claims only if the parties consent thereto, see 28 U.S.C.A. § 157(c) (West 1993).

Section 157(c)(1) allows a bankruptcy court to hear noncore proceedings and submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court for de novo review.

Chabot v. Washington Mutual Bank (In Re Chabot) · filed 2007-05-10(c)(1)

The most this Court could do with respect to a proceeding that is not a core proceeding, under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), is to hear the proceeding and submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court for consideration.

Section 157 authorizes bankruptcy courts to enter orders in core proceedings and final orders in non-core related proceedings with the parties’ consent after subject-matter jurisdiction exists.

Valley Historic Limited Partnership v. The Bank of New York · filed 2007-05-17

Only after jurisdiction is established pursuant to § 1334 is resort made to 28 U.S.C. § 157 to determine whether the proceeding is "core” or “non-core.” Bankruptcy courts are authorized to enter appropriate judgments and orders in core proceedings, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), and may enter final orders in non-core related proceedings with the consent of all the parties. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2). The determination that a claim is core or non-core is one that should not be reached, however, if subject matter jurisdiction does not exist.

Section 157(c)(1) requires a bankruptcy court handling a non-core related proceeding to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court.

Leibowitz v. Barnes Auto Group, Inc. (In Re Black) · filed 2008-06-23(c)(1)

Accordingly, the Court is required, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the District Court.

Section 157(c) requires a bankruptcy court to submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court in a non-core proceeding when the parties have not consented to entry of final judgment.

Jones v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance (In Re Jones) · filed 2009-02-10(c)

Since Defendant has not consented to entry of a final judgment by the bankruptcy court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c), this Court must submit its proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation to the district court for entry of a judgment.

Section 157(c)(1) requires a bankruptcy judge hearing a non-core proceeding related to a title 11 case to submit recommendations for final orders or judgments to the district court.

Jones v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance (In re Jones) · filed 2009-02-10(c)(1)

While under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), a bankruptcy judge may “hear” this proceeding, because Defendant has not consented to the entry of a final judgment by the bankruptcy judge, this Court must submit its recommendations for entry of any final orders or judgments to the district court.

Section 157 permits bankruptcy courts to render final decisions in core matters and make proposed findings for district court review in non-core matters.

Williams v. McGreevey (In Re Touch America Holdings, Inc.) · filed 2009-02-03(b)(1), (c)(1)

The practical consequence of the distinction between core and non-core bankruptcy matters is this: in core matters, bankruptcy courts may render final decisions, subject to appellate review (28 U.S.C § 157(b)(1), § 158(a)); in non-core matters, bankruptcy courts make only proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for de novo review and consideration by the district court (28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1)).

Section 157 does not permit a bankruptcy court to enter a final determination in a nondebtor dispute that does not affect estate administration.

Weaver v. Texas Capital Bank, N.A. · filed 2009-07-23(c)(1)

However, because this suit is between only persons not debtors in the bankruptcy action, and does not affect administration of the SL estate, the Court also finds that it would not be appropriate for the bankruptcy court to enter a final determination in this case.

Section 157 addresses a bankruptcy judge’s power to decide matters, while § 1334 supplies subject matter jurisdiction.

In Re DBSD North America, Inc. · filed 2009-10-26

Another provision, 28 U.S.C. § 157, which sometimes is said to address jurisdiction, more properly should be thought of as addressing the power of a bankruptcy, judge, an Article I judge, to decide certain matters, and not to subject matter jurisdiction itself.