proceedings, if any, does a bankruptcy court have jurisdiction subsequent to the dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy case? As a general rule, the dismissal of a bankruptcy case results in the dismissal of non-core, related proceedings, because the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over the related proceeding depends on its nexus with the underlying bankruptcy case. Tim Wargo & Sons, Inc. v. Mankin Farms, Inc. (In re Tim Wargo & Sons, Inc.), 107 B.R. 626 (Bankr.E.D.Ark.1989) (citing In re Smith, 866 F.2d 576, 580 (3rd Cir.1989)). Although, the bankruptcy court may have the discretion to determine whether it is proper to exercise jurisdiction after the underlying case has been dismissed or closed. See Carraher v. Morgan Electronics, Inc. (In re Carraher), 971 F.2d 327 (9th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); accord, In re Morris, 950 F.2d 1531, 1534
holding that an appeal challenging a bankruptcy court order approving a foreclosure sale became moot upon dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy case holding that it is axiomatic that remanding a case to state court terminates the jurisdiction of a federal bankruptcy or district court over that case holding an appellate court has the discretion to retain jurisdiction to render a decision on the merits of a case notwithstanding the filing of a notice of voluntary dismissal holding that bankruptcy courts must consider economy convenience fairness and comity in determining whether to retain jurisdiction over related proceedings after the dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy case holding that bankruptcy court has discretion to retain jurisdiction over related case after dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy case