Jurisdiction of bankruptcy court over adversarial actions

Section 157(a) allows district courts to refer to bankruptcy courts bankruptcy matters over which the district court has jurisdiction. Section 1334 provides that district courts have subject matter jurisdiction over all “civil proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in or related to cases under title 11.” 28 U.S.C. §1334(b). The jurisdictional statute thus offers three types of bankruptcy proceedings cognizable in bankruptcy court: “relating to,” “arising in,” and “arising under.” See, e.g., In re Rodriguez, 396 B.R. 436, 448 (S.D. Tex 2008).Jurisdiction over matters arising under title 11 and arising in cases under title 11 are generally referred to as a bankruptcy court’s “core” jurisdiction. In re Southmark Corp., 163 F.3d 925, 930 (5th Cir.1999). Proceedings involving substantive bankruptcy rights and the integrity of the bankruptcy courts fall within this core jurisdiction. In re Rodriguez, 396 B.R. at 448; In re Wood, 825 F.2d 90, 93 (5th Cir.1987)(“If the proceeding involves a right created by the federal bankruptcy law, it is a core proceeding…”); accord Carter v. Rodgers, 220 F.3d 1249, 1253 (11th Cir.2000). A matter “arises under” title 11 “if it invokes a substantive right provided by title 11.” In re Southmark, 163 F.3d at 930. Claims that “arise in” a bankruptcy case are claims that by their nature, not their particular factual circumstances, could only arise in the context of a bankruptcy case. Stoe v. Flaherty, 436 F.3d 209, 218 (3rd Cir.2006). State law claims are not “core proceedings” because the proceedings do not invoke “a substantive right provided by title 11 or a proceeding that, by its nature, could arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case.” In re Seven Fields, 505 F.3d at 256.Third, bankruptcy courts have jurisdiction over matters that are “related to” the bankruptcy. In re Denney, 171 F.3d 1016, 1022 (5th Cir.1999). A matter is “related to” a case under title 11 if the adversary proceeding’s outcome may both (1) alter the rights, obligations, and choices of action of the debtor, and (2) have an effect on the administration of the estate.” In re Bass, 171 F.3d 1016, 1022 (5th Cir.1999). An adversary proceeding falls within the court’s “related to” jurisdiction if “the outcome of that proceeding could conceivably have an effect on the estate being administered in bankruptcy.” In re Wood, 825 F.2d at 93 (citing Pacor, Inc. v. Higgins, 743 F.2d 984, 994 (3rd Cir.1984)).The general rule is that an adversarial proceeding “related to” a dismissed bankruptcy case should be dismissed. Once an estate ceases to exist it is impossible for a dispute to effect it. In re Schottenstein, 371 B.R. 276, 280 (S.D.Ohio 2007) (It is impossible for a post-confirmation dispute to have an effect on the estate as the debtors estate ceases to exist once confirmation has occurred.); In re Federalpha Steel LLC, 341 B.R. 872, 881 (N.D.ill.2006)(holding that post-confirmation, the Court lacks jurisdiction over state law claims because if the plaintiff succeeds, distributions will be from the former debtor’s property and not the property of the estate); accord In re Smith, Adv. Proc. No. 05-1183, Doc. #10 at *1 (N.D.Ohio, Dec.29, 2005) (An adversary proceeding that falls “within the general rule that related proceedings ordinarily should be dismissed following the termination of the underlying bankruptcy case.”).