bankruptcy court denied both motions and Tanguy filed his appeal with the district court thereafter. In his appeal to the district court, Tan-guy reasserted all of his original claims before the bankruptcy court and further appealed the bankruptcy court’s award of attorney’s fees to the Trustee and its rulings granting the Trustee’s motion to strike the jury demand, denying Tanguy’s motion to take judicial notice, and denying Tanguy’s motion for additional findings pursuant to Rule 7052. See Fed. R. Bankr.P. 7052. In addition, Tanguy asserted for the first time that the bankruptcy court and the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the proceedings due to the recent U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Stern v. Marshall, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 2594, 2611, 180 L.Ed.2d 475 (2011) (<HOLDING>). As a preliminary matter, the district court
holding that creditor lacked appellate standing to appeal order of bankruptcy court absent permission of bankruptcy court holding that a proceeding that by its nature could arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case is a core matter subject to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court holding that the district court had bankruptcy jurisdiction over a professional malpractice action filed by a title 11 debtor against the law firm that represented him in his bankruptcy case under section 1334b because the malpractice claim arose in the bankruptcy case holding that the bankruptcy court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over counterclaims asserted by the bankruptcy estate against a creditor where the claim is a state law action independent of the federal bankruptcy law and not necessarily resolvable by a ruling on the creditors proof of claim in the bankruptcy emphasis added holding that bankruptcy court is without jurisdiction to control disposition of chapter 13 debtors property that is not property of the bankruptcy estate unless the property is related to the bankruptcy proceedings of the code