between a counterclaim and a proof claim is irrelevant for establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction over the counterclaim. The relationship between the claim and counterclaim — and specifically, whether both will necessarily be resolved as part of the claims allowance process — is determinative only of whether a bankruptcy court may finally adjudicate the counterclaim in question. See Stern v. Marshall, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2594, 2620, 180 L.Ed.2d 475 (2011). Thus, this proceeding is statutorily core as a “counterclaim[ ] by the estate against persons filing claims against the estate.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(C). It follows, therefore, that the Court has jurisdiction over the proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) as one “arising in” a title 11 case. See Stern, 131 S.Ct. at 2604 (<HOLDING>). Further, any proceeding that arises under the
recognizing wide reach of jurisdiction under title 11 holding that a proceeding that by its nature could arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case is a core matter subject to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court holding that  656b serves as an independent basis to make all such debts nondischargeable under title 11 holding that all core proceedings necessarily arise under title 11 or arise in a title 11 case recognizing that most other courts apply title vii principles to title ix cases but refusing to apply title viis knew or should have known standard to a title ix claim