Such "arising in" proceedings "are those that occur in the case and that somehow have an effect on the administration of the panoply of rights and duties under the bankruptcy laws." Va. Hosp. Ctr.-Arlington Health Sys. v. Akl (In re Akl), 397 B.R. 546, 549 -550 (Bankr. D.D.C. 2008). In other words, an "'arising in' proceeding is one that must not only arise from events in the bankruptcy case but that by its nature is of an administrative character because it requires disposition in the bankruptcy case in order for the bankruptcy case to be administered."

Moreover, even in a case where a debtor alleged abuse of process by a creditor for initiating a proceeding "to obtain a determination that the debts owed to it by [the debtor] were nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6)," the Bankruptcy Court held that it lacked jurisdiction because the counterclaims at issue "arose postpetition and ... would not affect the administration of the estate." Va. Hosp. Ctr.–Arlington Health Sys. v. Akl (In re Akl ), 397 B.R. 546, 547–48 (Bankr. D.D.C. 2008). In that case, the Bankruptcy Court emphasized that "an ‘ "arising in" ’ proceeding is one that must not only arise from events in the bankruptcy case but that by its nature is of an ‘ "administrative" ’ character because it requires disposition in the bankruptcy case in order for the bankruptcy case to be administered."

In re Gardner, 913 F.2d at 1517-18 (citations omitted); In re Otero Cty. Hosp. Ass'n, Inc., 527 B.R. 719 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2015) ("Under this test, a bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to adjudicate claims between third parties where the outcome of the litigation could have a conceivable effect on the bankruptcy estate.") (citing In re Midgard, 204 B.R. at 771). Defendant correctly argues that Plaintiff's claim is not related to the bankruptcy case because it arose after the bankruptcy petition was filed, and, therefore, is not property of the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541. Doc. 9 at 4 (citing In re Narro, 2012 WL 4027258, at *10); see also In re Akl, 397 B.R. 546, 548 (Bankr. D.D.C. 2008) ("Akl's counterclaim arose postpetition (sic) and is therefore not property of the estate."); In re Boone, 52 F.3d 958, 960 (11th Cir. 1995) ("The conduct giving rise to the claim occurred after the petition in bankruptcy, and therefore the cause of action is not property of the estate.

These "administrative matters" include a bankruptcy court's appointment, supervision, enforcement of appropriate standards of conduct, and approval of fees of professionals conducting themselves in a bankruptcy case. See In re Akl, 397 B.R. 546, 554 (Bankr.D.D.C.2008) (citing In re Southmark Corp., 163 F.3d 925, 931 (5th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1004, 119 S.Ct. 2339, 144 L.Ed.2d 236 (1999)); see also, Seven Fields, 505 F.3d at 260-61. Thus, claims based upon the conduct of court-appointed attorneys often fall within the "administrative matters" leading to "arising in" jurisdiction.

Id. “Arising in” jurisdiction is therefore limited to claims that are necessary to administer a bankruptcy estate. In re Akl, 397 B.R. 546, 554 (Bankr.D.D.C.2008). “[P]roceedings or claims arising in Title 11 are those that are not based on any right expressly created by Title 11, but nevertheless, would have no existence outside of the bankruptcy.”

Nor does it "arise in" the bankruptcy case, as it is not a dispute that could have its existence only in the bankruptcy case. See Wood v. Wood (In re Wood), 825 F.2d 90, 97 (5th Cir. 1987) (holding that "'arising in' proceedings are those that are not based on any right expressly created by title 11, but nevertheless, would have no existence outside of the bankruptcy . . . .") (footnote omitted); In re Akl, 397 B.R. 546, 550 (Bankr. D.D.C. 2008) (a proceeding that does not concern the administration of the case is not a proceeding "arising in" the case). Finally, resolution of that dispute would have no impact on the administration of the bankruptcy estate such as to be "related to" the bankruptcy case.

Hall's claims arose in part after the filing of the debtor's bankruptcy case, but that does mean that they "arose in" the bankruptcy case within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 1334(b). See Va. Hosp. Ctr.-Arlington Health Sys. v. Akl (In re Akl ), 397 B.R. 546, 550 (Bankr. D.D.C. 2008) ("an 'arising in' proceeding is one that must not only arise from events in the bankruptcy case but that by its nature is of an 'administrative' character because it requires disposition in the bankruptcy case in order for the bankruptcy case to be administered."). The proceeding must be of a nature that it would have "no existence outside of the bankruptcy."

Accordingly, "an 'arising in' proceeding is one that must not only arise from events in the bankruptcy case but that by its nature is of an 'administrative' character because it requires a disposition in the bankruptcy case in order for the bankruptcy case to be administered." Va. Hosp. Centerarlington Health Sys. v. Akl (In re Akl), 397 B.R. 546, 550-51 (Bankr. D.D.C. 2008) (holding that a debtor's counterclaim against a creditor for abuse of process based on the creditor's filing of an adversary proceeding against the debtor - an act taken in conjunction with the bankruptcy case - did not "arise in" the bankruptcy case because the counterclaim did not concern the administration of the bankruptcy case). See also Capitol Hill Grp. v. DCA Capitol Hill LTAC, LLC (In re Specialty Hosp. of Wash., LLC), 580 B.R. 302, 309 (D.D.C. 2018) (ruling that the parties' contract dispute that arose incident to a bankruptcy sale did not "arise in" the debtor's bankruptcy case because the parties' claims did not "affect the administration of the estate").

Accordingly, those claims do not fall within this court's "arising in" jurisdiction. See Capitol Hill Grp. v. DCA Capitol Hill LTAC, LLC (In re Specialty Hosp. of Washington, LLC), No. 16-090 (BAH), 2017 WL 5952686, at *5, *8-9 (D.D.C. Nov. 28, 2017); Va. Hosp. Centerarlington Health Sys. v. Akl (In re Akl), 397 B.R. 546, 547-48 (Bankr. D.D.C. 2008). The claims would have no impact on the administration of the estate, thus failing the test of Pacor, Inc. v. Higgins, 743 F.2d 984, 994 (3d Cir. 1984) for "related to" jurisdiction.

"[A]n 'arising in' proceeding is one that must not only arise from events in the bankruptcy case but that by its nature is of an 'administrative' character because it requires a disposition in the bankruptcy case in order for the bankruptcy case to be administered." In re Akl, 397 B.R. 546, 550 (Bankr. D.D.C. 2008).