the Supreme Court held that a bankruptcy court “lacked the constitutional authority to enter a final judgment on a state law counterclaim that is not resolved in the process of ruling on a creditor’s proof of claim.” Id. at 2620. In other words, “the question is whether the action at issue stems from the bankruptcy itself or would necessarily be resolved in the claims allowance process.” Id. at 2618. In Stern, the “action at issue” was an independent state law tort claim that the bankruptcy court need not have addressed. Id. In this case, the situation could hardly be more different. Unquestionably, a bankruptcy court’s decision whether to grant relief from an automatic stay “stems from the bankruptcy process itself.” Stern, 131 S.Ct. at 2618. Indeed, a bankruptcy court is gr 12) (<HOLDING>). Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the
holding that bankruptcy court may issue proposed findings and conclusions in a core proceeding over which the bankruptcy court does not have constitutional authority holding that after stem bankruptcy judges have the authority to enter interlocutory orders in noncore proceedings and in core proceedings as to which the bankruptcy court may not enter final orders or judgment consistent with article iii absent consent holding that a lawsuit alleging malpractice by an accountant in a bankruptcy case was a core matter within a bankruptcy courts jurisdiction holding that stem does not change bankruptcy courts authority to decide fundamental core procedures of bankruptcy court 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