substantial enough to override the strong federal policy of enforcing arbitration clauses. Furthermore, there is nothing on the record which indicates that the costs associated with arbitrating Persofsky’s claim would result in either a substantial depletion of Debtor’s estate or a significant hardship. The Court grants Persofsky’s motion to lift the automatic stay in order to proceed to arbitration against Debtor for the above stated reasons. An Order will follow. ORDER For those reasons indicated in the Opinion filed this date, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the restated request to lift the automatic stay by counsel for Barry Persofsky is GRANTED. 1 . Drafted with the assistance of Wendy E. Morris, Law Clerk. 2 . Persofsky's April 8, 2002 proof of claim replaced his , 850-53 (6th Cir.1993)(<HOLDING>). 5 . Debtor’s argument that the Third
recognizing that the party can instead file a claim against the estate holding that ordinary statelaw claims for fraud against creditor were not core proceedings holding that a lawsuit by a third party creditor against the estate is a core proceeding holding that a proceeding under section 547 is a core proceeding holding that a third party has authority to consent to a search if the third party is a coinhabitant