and the publishers fail to explain why a creditor’s claim of non-discharge-ability is any less “integral to the restructuring of the debtor-creditor relationship” than the preference action at issue in Langenkamp. Id. at 44, 111 S.Ct. 330. Our sister circuits that have addressed the issue have applied Langenkamp to non-dischargeability actions. See In re CBI Holding Co., 529 F.3d 432, 466 (2d Cir.2008) (“In Langenkamp, the Supreme Court held that if a creditor who has filed such a claim is met with an adversary proceeding, the resolution of which affects the equitable restructuring of debtor-creditor or creditor-creditor relations, then the creditor loses its right to a jury trial even with regard to traditional legal claims.”); In re Kennedy, 108 F.3d 1015, 1018 (9th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Billing v. Ravin, Greenberg & Zackin, P.A.,
holding that a trial court can only consider admissible evidence in ruling on a motion for summary judgment holding that a bankruptcy court ruling on a creditors action for nondischargeability may also render a money judgment in an amount certain without the assistance of a jury quoting in re devitt 126 br 212 215 bankrdmd1991 recognizing that the district court is afforded broad discretion in ruling on motions for relief from judgment holding that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment the trial court is limited to the grounds raised in the motion holding that a court may not consider hearsay contained in an affidavit when ruling on a summary judgment motion