11 or [2] if it is a proceeding, that by its nature, could arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case.” * * * Non-core proceedings include the broader universe of all proceedings that are not core proceedings but are nevertheless “related to” a bankruptcy case. Id. at 836 (internal citations omitted). The Bankruptcy Court concluded that Appellant’s claim met the requirements of Section 157(b)(2)(B), but the Court disagrees. Appellant’s claim is a pre-petition, state law, employment contract claim. Appellant did not file proofs of claim in this matter until after this appeal, and therefore, the Court concludes that Section 157(b)(2)(B) was not implicated at the time the Bankruptcy Court issued its decision. In re S.G. Phillips Constructors, Inc., 45 F.3d 702, 704, 707 (2d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); see also In re G.I. Indus., Inc., 204 F.3d
holding that the state law contract claim alleged the same conduct as in the erisa claim and was therefore preempted recognizing that filing of proof of claim triggers section 157b2b and transforms prepetition contract claim arising under state law into core matter holding that when a creditor files a proof of claim the bankruptcy court has core jurisdiction to determine that claim even if it was a prepetition contract claim arising under state law holding that because creditor did not file a proof of claim on a prepetition contract matter the peculiar powers of the bankruptcy court had not been invoked holding that defendant had qualified immunity under section 19853 claim where underlying claim failed as a matter of law