jurisdiction.”). Appellants point to this language, insisting that their claims, “although framed as state law claims ... depend upon an interpretation of the Bankruptcy Court’s Sale Order.” Appellants’ argument misses the mark, however, because the bankruptcy court’s mere approval of Debtors’ sale of assets to Steward did not automatically create jurisdiction over all future contract disputes somehow related to the APA. Hence, unlike Middlesex Power Equip. & Marine, Inc., which involved the interpretation of a specific provision of a sale order, Appellants here have failed to identify any provision of the Sale Order itself or any related questions of bankruptcy law underlying their claims that would require interpretation by the bankruptcy court. Ind , 340 B.R. 661, 669 (D.N.H. 2006) (<HOLDING>). In short, Appellants’ claims do not fit into
holding that debtorinpossessions postpetition contract dispute was a core proceeding thus implicitly holding that for purposes of 28 usc  157b1 the proceeding was one arising in the case and that accordingly for purposes of  1334b as well the proceeding was one arising in the case holding that a defamation claim is a personal injury tort claim holding reasonable fee in contract action included fees incurred in related bankruptcy proceeding 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 defamation action is not a proceeding arising in a bankruptcy case