claims based on common law, this Court concludes that only an Article III court may render final judgment on the Trustee’s claims. At the threshold, however, the Trustee argues that because the underlying adversary proceeding is only at the motion to dismiss stage, the Bankruptcy Court is merely ruling on a “pre-trial” matter that does not intrude on the District Court’s sole authority to enter “final judgment.” See Opposition to Motion of Sukhmeet “Micky” Dhillon, MSD Family Trust, and Eric Lipoff to Withdraw the Reference dated Nov. 28, 2011 (“Trustee Opp. Br.”) at 7-9, Indeed, in ruling on a separate motion to dismiss in the underlying adversary proceeding filed by other defendants who did not join the instant motion to withdraw the reference, the Bankrup .3d 82, 88 (2d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). But this cannot be proper unless the
holding that a summary judgment is a determination on the merits for res judicata and collateral estoppel purposes holding that res judicata and collateral estoppel apply to arbitration award holding that a bankruptcy courts sale order is a final order for res judicata purposes holding that lender liability claims are noncore and thus not barred by res judicata effect of bankruptcy proceedings holding that collateral attacks on bankruptcy courts jurisdiction are barred by res judicata