and issuance of a money judgment incident to its dischargeability determination exceeded its subject matter jurisdiction. [¶ 23] The majority of federal courts to consider the issue have concluded that bankruptcy courts have jurisdiction to quantify a debtor’s liability and enter a money judgment against the debtor as a function of their authority to determine the dischargeability of a debt. See, e.g., Cowen v. Kennedy (In re Kennedy), 108 F.3d 1015, 1018 (9th Cir.1997) (“We conclude, in conformity with all of the circuits which have considered the matter, that the bankruptcy court acted within its jurisdiction in entering a monetary judgment ... in conjunction with a finding that the debt was non-dischargeable.”); Porges v. Gruntal & Co. (In re Porges), 44 F.3d 159, 164 (2d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). This has been referred to as the “expansive
holding sanctions order pursuant to district courts inherent powers not immediately appealable holding that it was within the bankruptcy courts equitable powers to award damages in an action for fraud on the court holding that pursuant to federal statute and the courts inherent equitable powers a bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to issue a separate money judgment after determining the amount and dischargeability of a claim recognizing the inherent power of the courts to issue warrants holding that the bankruptcy courts as compared to state courts have exclusive jurisdiction to determine issues of dischargeability under the bankruptcy code