Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Stacy Danley’s counterclaim is a nullity because he failed to pay the filing fee for it in the State Court. This argument is without merit because an unpaid filing fee in a state court does not nullify a claim in a federal court. Stephanie Danley’s counterclaim is a closer call because she did not claim money damages. If her wrongful foreclosure claim is successful, however, her rights and options regarding the Residence will expand, the Residence itself will re-enter the bankruptcy estate (subject to Liberty Bank’s reinstated mortgage), and Liberty Bank would presumably have a large deficiency claim against the bankruptcy estate. Therefore, it is “related to” their bankruptcy case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). Cf. Land Ventures for 2, LLC v. Fritz, 551 B.R. 846, 850 (M.D.Ala.2015) (<HOLDING>), appeal docketed, No. 15-15303 (11th Cir. Nov. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a lawsuit alleging malpractice by an accountant in a bankruptcy case was a core matter within a bankruptcy courts jurisdiction (B) holding that bankruptcy court is without jurisdiction to control disposition of chapter 13 debtors property that is not property of the bankruptcy estate unless the property is related to the bankruptcy proceedings of the code (C) holding that the district court had bankruptcy jurisdiction over a professional malpractice action filed by a title 11 debtor against the law firm that represented him in his bankruptcy case under section 1334b because the malpractice claim arose in the bankruptcy case (D) holding that a corporate chapter 7 debt ors malpractice claim against its bankruptcy attorney was related to its bankruptcy case (E) holding that bankruptcy court has discretion to retain jurisdiction over related case after dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy case
Output (English): holding that a lawsuit alleging malpractice by an accountant in a bankruptcy case was a core matter within a bankruptcy courts jurisdiction