father is property of their respective bankruptcy estates. This is a core matter as it “concern[s] the administration of the estate.” § 157(b)(2); see also In re Southmark Corp., 163 F.3d 925, 930 (5th Cir. 1999). This Court may only hear a case in which venue is proper. 28 U.S.C. § 1408. In their petitions, both Ramirez and Eck-hardt state their residence is located in Laredo, Texas. [LR ECF No. 1 at 1]; [RE ECF No. 1 at 2]. Therefore, venue is proper. B. Constitutional Authority to Enter a Final Order This Court has an independent duty to evaluate whether it has the constitutional authority to sign a final order. Stem v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462, 131 S.Ct. 2594, 180 L.Ed.2d 475 (2011).But see Wellness. Int’l Network v. Sharif, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 1932, 1938-39, 191 L.Ed.2d 911 (2015) (<HOLDING>). The instant issue solely determines whether
holding that a federal court may refuse to exercise continuing jurisdiction even though the parties have agreed to it parties cannot confer jurisdiction by stipulation or consent holding that in bankruptcyrelated matters any one party may remove the state court action without the consent of the other parties holding that parties may consent to jurisdiction on noncore matters holding that lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by consent holding that parties may stipulate to facts from which jurisdiction may be inferred