Supreme Court reasoned that bankruptcy judges are not protected by the lifetime tenure attribute of Article III judges, but they were performing Article III judgments by judging on “all matters of fact and law” with finality. Id. at 2618-19. Hence, the Court held Article III imposes some restrictions against a bankruptcy judge’s power to rule with finality, but a bankruptcy court is permitted to issue final judgments and orders where the issue “arises in” or “arises under” bankruptcy, but not where the issue is merely “related to” bankruptcy. See § 157. However, Article III will be satisfied where parties knowingly and voluntarily consent to the bankruptcy court’s power to issue final judgments. Wellness Int’l Network v. Sharif, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1932, 1938-39, 191 L.Ed.2d 911 (2015) (<HOLDING>). The matter at bar arises from Plaintiffs’
holding that lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by consent 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 stipulate to facts from which jurisdiction may be inferred holding that parties may consent to jurisdiction on noncore matters