that the instant Motion is nothing more than forum-shopping on the part of debtor”). Thus, in the instant case the interest in preventing possible forum shopping weighs against withdrawing the reference. Finally, the interest in “ensuring uniformity of the administration of the bankruptcy estate” weighs against withdrawing the reference. Because the dis-chargeability of Vachani’s debt is a “core” matter, “[t]he uniformity of bankruptcy administration would be adversely affected if this Court were to withdraw reference with respect to a claim more properly within the Bankruptcy Court’s competence.” In re Rosales, 2013 WL 5962007, at *7 (finding that uniformity factor weighed against withdrawing the reference); see also In re Orion Pictures Corp., 4 F.3d 1095, 1101 (2d Cir. 1993) (<HOLDING>). As discussed above, the Bankruptcy Court has
holding that subject matter questions may be but are not necessarily decided before questions of personal jurisdiction holding the correct fourth amendment inquiry assuming the detention is legitimate is whether the questions extended the time that a driver was detained regardless of the questions content holding that in general an agencys conclusion of law that presents mixed questions of fact and law is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard but questions concerning whether an agency has followed proper procedures or considered the appropriate factors in making its determination are questions of law which are reviewed de novo recognizing that whether a consumer survey should be admitted depends among other things on whether the questions are leading or suggestive  holding that questions of efficiency and uniformity will turn on whether the claim is core or noncore