could conceivably have any effect on the estate being administered in bankruptcy.’ ”) (quoting Pacor, Inc. v. Higgins, 743 F.2d 984, 994 (3d Cir.1984)), the proceeding will not effect Debtors’ claims processes or their bankruptcy cases in general. See Donington, 194 B.R. at 759 (“ ‘subsection (0) does not render a proceeding core merely because the resolution of the action results in more, or less, assets in the estate.’ ”) (quoting In re Baranello & Sons, Inc., 149 B.R. 19, 25 (E.D.N.Y.1992)). Plaintiffs withdrew their proof of claim as of right prior to the commencement of this action. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ alleged “claim” constitutes a legal nullity for the purposes of Debtors’ bankruptcy and is completely governed by state law. See Smith v. Dowden, 47 F.3d 940, 943 (8th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). In addition, the Plan, effective as of
recognizing the right to waive a jury trial holding defendant to a preference action has a right to a jury trial pursuant to the seventh amendment of the united states constitution but that right can be waived by filing a claim in the bankruptcy proceedings holding that seventh amendment right to jury trial not violated by courts dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to rule 12b6 because as a matter of law complaint faded to present an issue for trial holding that seventh amendment right to jury trial not violated by courts dismissal for lack of jurisdiction holding that creditors withdrawal of proof of claim before trustee was able to commence fraudulent transfer proceeding against them rendered their withdrawn claim a legal nullity not effective to waive defendants seventh amendment right to a jury trial