Summary
holding that, where a "core-related supplemental claim" exists, 28 U.S.C. § 1367 allows the district court, under 28 U.S.C. § 157 and LR 83.7, ND Ga., to refer a claim to the Bankruptcy Court for determination, and defining a "core-related supplemental claim" as one "with three attributes . . . : It does not meet the usual 'conceivable effect' test and, therefore, lacks an independent basis for jurisdiction under § 1334(b); It is asserted in a proceeding in which the primary claim arises under the Bankruptcy Code such that the original proceeding is 'core'; and It has a nexus with the primary claim that is sufficient to bring the claim within a district court's § 1334(b) jurisdiction as supplemented by § 1367"
Summary of this case from Daniels v. Howe Law Firm, P.C. (In re Daniels)Opinion
No. 07-14888 Non-Argument Calendar.
February 13, 2008.
Mark Ashland Thompson, DeKalb County Law Office, DeKalb County Law Department, Decatur, GA, for Third Party-Defendants-Appellants.
John C. Clark, Robert J. Proctor, John E. Ramsey, III, Proctor Hutchins, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants-Third Party-Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. D.C. Docket No. 07-01190-CV-CAP-1, BKCY No. 01-88200-BKC-PW.
Before BIRCH, DUBINA and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
After reviewing the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude that the bankruptcy court properly exercised subject-matter jurisdiction over Heartwood's claim against DeKalb County. We find no error, therefore, in either the district court's adoption of the bankruptcy court's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law or its entry of judgment in Heartwood's favor. DeKalb County's additional arguments, moreover, are meritless. Accordingly, we affirm.