Bankr. EDNC: New Bern Riverfront v. Weaver Cooke- No Implied Consent to Non-Core Jurisdiction

Summary: The complaint and anser both failed, in contravention of Rules 7008(a) and 7012(b), to state whether the proceeding was core or  non-core, and if non-core, where the parties consented to the bankruptcy court entering  final orders or judgments.  The Court held that, in light of Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2594 (2011), it could not  that the parties have impliedly consented to its jurisdiction over non-core matters.  Consequently, it gave the parties thirty days to file a statement concerning whether the matter was core or non-core and whether the parties consented to the bankruptcy court’s conclusive jurisdiction. Comments: If a  statement regarding whether a matter is core or non-core and, if the latter,  whether parties consent to the bankruptcy court entering final orders and judgments,  is not already a standard pleading paragraph,  it  had better become one.  While the bankruptcy judges (and likely entire federal judiciary) are still puzzling out the extent of Stern, Judge Leonard's patience  should hopefully be the norm,  but eventually even that will  wear out. New Bern Riverfront v. Weaver Cooke- No Implied Consent to Non-Core Jurisdiction.PDF