the Debtor’s Motion to Remand, argued that the Debtor’s claim was primarily one for violation of the automatic stay, stating that “[t]he only reason why a claim exists at all is because of the bankruptcy stay.” Now, in a stunning about-face, GTR joins GFC in arguing that the Complaint should be read as asserting state law claims only. GTR was right the first time, and it should be cautious about taking such contradictory positions in the same action. As admitted by the Defendants, any rights arising from a violation of the automatic stay are substantive rights created by the Bankruptcy Code and are thus quintessentially core matters. Banks v. Kam’s Auto Sales (In re Banks), 521 B.R. 417, 420 (Bankr.M.D.Ga.2014); see also, e.g., MBNA Am. Bank v. Hill, 436 F.3d 104 (2nd Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); Fortune & Faal v. Zumbrun (In re Zumbrun), 88
holding that a lawsuit by a third party creditor against the estate is a core proceeding holding that ordinary statelaw claims for fraud against creditor were not core proceedings holding that  362k claims are core holding that claims are related if they involve a common core of facts or they are based on related legal theories holding that facilitating small claims is the policy at the very core of the class action mechanism