proceeding without prejudice when it dismissed Powell’s bankruptcy case; and 3) they should have been granted a default judgment because Appellees did not file an answer. However, 1) as correctly explained by the bankruptcy court, all of Appellants’ claims are barred as a matter of law either by res judicata or failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), and where the issue is purely one of law, “the jury, as trier of fact, has no role, and [the plaintiffs] Seventh Amendment rights are not infringed,” Barrett v. Indep. Order of Foresters, 625 F.2d 73, 75 (5th Cir.1980); 2) under the circumstances, the bankruptcy court was well within its discretion to retain jurisdiction over the adversary proceeding, see Querner v. Querner (In re Querner), 7 F.3d 1199, 1202 (5th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); and 3) Appellants’ claims were dismissed
holding that bankruptcy courts must consider economy convenience fairness and comity in determining whether to retain jurisdiction over related proceedings after the dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy case holding that bankruptcy court has discretion to retain jurisdiction over related case after dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy case holding that a bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction postconfirmation to adjudicate adversary proceeding concerning asset purchases at bankruptcy sale notwithstanding inclusion of language in the plan purporting to retain such jurisdiction in the bankruptcy court 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 holding that an appeal challenging a bankruptcy court order approving a foreclosure sale became moot upon dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy case