the propriety of the requested declaratory relief would have no effect on the bankruptcy estate. Whether the relief is granted or denied, the estate would receive no assets. No administration would occur and no distributions would be made. Absent such an interest, “related to” jurisdiction simply does not exist. C. Alternatively, even if the Court has jurisdiction of the Adversary Proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157, it declines to assert its jurisdiction. The Declaratory Judgment Act confers “unique and substantial discretion” upon federal courts, including discretion whether to entertain, stay, or dismiss the action. Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 286, 115 S.Ct. 2137, 132 L.Ed.2d 214 (1995); see also Sani-Top, Inc. v. North Am. Aviation, Inc., 261 F.2d 342, 344 (9th Cir.1958) (<HOLDING>). The courts are under no compulsion to
holding that a states use of the word shall is mandatory language holding that the word may in the declaratory judgment act does not mean shall  holding that the declaratory judgment act is a procedural device holding that the declaratory judgment act is remedial only and the party seeking declaratory relief must have an underlying cause of action holding that the use of the word shall in the extradition clause and the extradition act creates a mandatory duty