— we nonetheless should reverse the lower courts’ refusal to grant relief from the Plan’s injunctive provisions, quoted supra note 2, so that the churches can initiate a proceeding in the Massachusetts probate court to conform the trusts to the will and reintroduce the “bed for indigent patients” limitation. BRMC argues that this is a non-issue because the earlier probate orders constitute a bar to further proceedings on res judicata grounds. We need not reach the res judicata issue (and, consequently, do available to a litigant in the bankruptcy court conceivably might be available in another forum is not, in and of itself, sufficient to require the bankruptcy court to lift an injunction or a stay. See, e.g., In re Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc., 328 F.3d 829, 836-37 (6th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). The bankruptcy court is entitled to consider
holding that trial court had discretion to relax the thirtyday rule in the interests of justice holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to relax the civil rules and hear a motion that was essentially a filing long overdue holding that denial of amendment is within discretion of trial court holding that the bankruptcy court acted within its discretion in refusing to relax an antisuit injunction even though the denial of relief might cause hardship to the movants ability to litigate a state law claim holding that the state court may adjudicate the applicability of a bankruptcy injunction to state court litigation