2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
7-31-2008 

# R ich ard M ul l ark ey v . Leon ard T amb o e r P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 05-4081

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" R ich a r d M ul l a rkey v . L e on a r d T

amboe r " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 743. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/743P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT C as e N o: 05- 4081 I N R E : RI CH AR D J OHN MULL AR KE Y,

D ebt or RI CH AR D M UL L AR KE Y, A ppel l ant

v. L E S L I E T AM BO E R; L E ONAR D T AM BO E R; J OHN

M CK E NNA; DAVI D GHE RL ONE ; S T E VE N KAR T Z M AN

C as e N o: 05- 4651 RI CH AR D M UL L AR KE Y, A ppel l ant

v. LE ONA RD TAM BOER; LE S LI E T AM BOER; J OHN MCKE NNA; DAVI D GHE RL ONET he H onor abl e G us t ave D i amond, Seni orD i s t r i ctJ udge for * t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our ti n t he W es t ern D is t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 2 O n ap p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey D i s t r i ctC our tN os . 05- C V

- 2594, 05- C V

- 2010 D istri ct Ju d g e: T h e H o n o rab le F ait h S

. H o ch b erg

A r gued February13, 2008 B e f o re : S L O V IT E R a n d S M IT H , C i r cui tJudges , a n d D IA M O N D , D is t r i ct Judge * ( Fi l ed: J ul y31, 2008) Ch r i s t i a n G. Ve r g o n i s ( AR GUE D) J ones D ay 5 1 L o u i s i a n a A v e n u e , N
. W. W as hi ngt on, D C 20001- 0000 C ouns el f orAppel l ant Ka t h l e e n B. Ri o r d a n ( AR GUE D) H ack, Pi r o, O ' D ay , M er kl i nger , W al l ace & M cK enna 30 C ol um bi a Turnpi ke P. O

. B ox 941 Fl or ham P ar k, N J 07932- 00003 G i na M
. L ongar zo, E s q. 244 G r een V i l l age Road M adi s on, N J 07940 C ouns el f orAppel l ee St even K ar t zman 1 P ro f e ss io n a l Q u a d ra n g le Spar t a, N J 07871- 2310 Pr o Se

OP I NI ON

S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge

. R i char d M ul l ar keyand the T amboer s eac h ow ned an undi vi d ed one- hal f i nt er es ti n a par cel of pr oper t yknow n as “The Pri ncet on E s t at es , ” or86 B r anchvi ll e R oad, H ampt on T o wns h i p , New J e r s e y . Th e Ta mbo e r s a g r e e d t o pay M ul l ar key ’ s or i gi nal bank mort gage a nd, i n tur n, hel d a m or t gage on hi s s har e of t he pr oper ty . T he mort gage w as dat ed J une 2, 1990, and w as r ecor ded on February28, 1991. M u l l a r k e yu l t i ma t e l yd e f a u l t e d o n h i s mo r t g a g e o b l i g a t i o n s . On J ul y2, 1997, t he Tam boer s i ni t i at ed a for ecl os ur e act i on i n N ew Jerse ystat e co u rt
. M u ll ark eyd id n o t app ea r an d the s tat e c o u rtM ul l ar key cont ends t hat he w as unabl e t o obt ai n m uni ci pal 1 ap p rov al fo r su b d ivisi o n o f the p rop erty b ec au se the T am b o ers w oul d notgi ve hi m t he engi neer i ng m aps , appr oval s and other nece s s ar ydocument at i on. 4 ent er ed a de faul tj udgm entof for ecl os ur e on M ar ch 25, 1999, and s chedul ed a Sher i ff’ s Sal e. O n J une 4, 1999, M ul l ar key fi l ed a Cha pt er13 bankrupt cypet i t i on, w hi ch tr i gger ed the aut om at i c s t aypr ovi s i on of t he B ankrupt cy C ode and st ay ed the S h e ri f f ’s S a le

. O n A pr i l 17, 2000, t he Tam boer s fi l ed a mot i on s eeki ng r el i ef f rom t he aut om at i c s t aybas ed on M ul l ar key ’ s cont i nued fai l ur e t o m ake paym ent s pur s uant t o t he t er m s of t he mort gage. T h e B a n k r u p tcy C o u rt g ra n ted M u llark e ya d d iti o n a l ti m e to o b tain a p p ro v a l f

o r su b d iv isio n o f th e p ro p e rty to e n a b le h im to s el l hi s i nt er est
. T he appr oval s w er e notobt ai ned and 1 appr oxi m at el ya y earl at er , on M ar ch 13, 2001, t he B ankrupt cy C our tent ere d an or dergr ant i ng t he Tam boer s r el i ef f r om t he aut om at i c s t ay . M ul l ar keyappea l ed t hi s deci s i on t o t he D i s t r i ct C our tand r eques t ed t hat t he D i s t r i ctC our ts t ayi m pl ement at i on of t he St ayR el i ef O r derpendi ng t he out come of t he appeal

. T he C our tdeni ed the s t ayr eques t
. M ul l ar key al s o s ought t o s t ayt he Sher i ff’ s Sal e i n s t at e cour t , w hi ch w as al s o deni ed. I n addi t i on, he made an appl i cat i on t o t he B ankrupt cy C our tforan or der v a c a tin g th e o rd e r v a c a tin g s ta y , w h ic h w a s a ls o d e n ie d

. T h e T am b o ers p u rch ase d the p ro p e rt yat t h e S h eriff ’sO n D ece m ber3, 2003, the D i s t r i ctC our ti s s ued an or der 2 i ns t ruct i ng M ul l ar keyt o “s ubm i t a cl earand conc i s e s t at ement o f t h e b a s i s f

o rf e d e r a l s u b

j e c tma t t e rj u r i s d i c t i o n . ” On D ecem b er19, 2003, M ul l ar keyr es ponded bys et t i ng for t h t en “fa ct s ” t hatfor m the b as i s forhi s pr o s e C om pl ai nt
. A s s uch, w h e n w e re f

e r to M u llark e y ’s C o m p lain t th ro u g h o u t th is opi ni on, i ti s t o t hes e “f act s ” thatw e ar e r efe r r i ng. M ul l ar keyal s o fi l ed the s ame C om pl ai nti n t he B ankrupt cy 3 C our ton J anuary30, 2004 agai ns tt he Tam boer s . O n A p ri l 8, 2004, M ul l ar keyfi l ed an A m ended C om pl ai ntaddi ng J ohn M cK enna a nd D avi d G her l one t o t he ca s e. M ul l ar keyas s er t ed 5 S ale o n Ju ly6 , 2 0 0 1
. F o ll o w ing the S h eriff ’s S ale, M u ll ark ey ’s bankrupt cycas e re m ai ned open w hi l e he com pl et ed the s al e of a n u n re late d p ro p e rtya n d m a d e th e p a y m e n ts c a lled f o r b yh is r eor gani zat i on pl an. H i s r eor gani zat i on pl an w as confi r m ed on A p ri l 1 1 , 2 0 0 1
. O n D ecem ber 2, 2 0 0 3 , M ull arkeyfi l ed a p ro se C om pl aint agai ns tt he Tam boer s i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C our tfort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey . T he es s ence of 2 M ul l ark ey ’s all eg ati o n s is th at t h e T am b o ers c o m m i tt ed fr aud on t he B ankrupt cy C our t and thatt hei ract i ons cons t i tut ed “s ever al act s of r acke t eer i ng” i n vi ol at i on o f t he fe der al R acke t eer I nfl uence d and C or ruptO r ganizat i ons ( R I C O ) s t atut e. T he D i s t r i ct C our t ul t i m at el y det er m i ned t hat t he “mat t eroverw hi ch t he Pl ai nt i ff c om pl ai ns i s r el at ed t o t he B ankrupt cyPr ocee di ng” a n d r e f e r r e d t h e m a t t e rt o b a n k ru p t c y. 3t h a tb o t h o f t h e s e i n d i v i d u a l s wi t h h e l d e v i d e n c e f r o m t he B an k rup tcyC o u rtas to the c ri m inal inten t of the T am b o ers reg ard ing the s ale of the pro p erty
. A d v ersa ryp roc ee d ing s w ere d is m is s e d a s to D a v id G h e rl o n e o n O c to b e r 1 8 , 2 0 0 4
. 6 A ft er the C om pl ai ntw as r efe r r ed t o t he B ankrupt cy C our t , M ul l ar keyfi l ed fourm ot i ons . T he C our t deni ed ea ch m o ti o n in an o rde r da ted J an u ary1 2 , 2 0 0 5
. T h e m o ti o n s w ere f o r : 1 ) a d i s c r e t i o n a r yc h a n g e o f v e n u e t o th e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ; 2) j oinder of Steven K art zm an ( M ull arkey ’s form er at t orney ) as a nece s s ar y par t y ; 3) “a r efe r ence t o a pr os ecut i ng author i t y ”; and 4) a mot i on t o r econs i dert he or derdi s m i ssing D efe ndant G her l one. O n J anuary 21, 2005, M ul l ar key appea l ed t he deni al of t hes e four m ot i ons . H ow ever , he i ncorr ect l yfi l ed hi s appea l w ith th e B a n k ru p tcy C o u rt. T h e a p p e a l w a s e v e n tu a lly t r ans ferr ed t o the D i s t r i ctC our tand as s i gned ci vi l docket num ber05- 2010. I tappea r s , how ever , t hatonl y t w o of t he four o rd e rs w e re e v e r re c o rd e d o n th e D is tr ict C o u rt d o c k e t. A t all ev en ts, the D istri ct C o u rtaf firm ed th e B an k rup tcyC o u rt ’s deni al of M ul l ar key ’ s m ot i ons on A ugus t2, 2005. B ot h par t i es se e m to a g re e , h o w e v e r , th a t th e D istric t C o u rt n e v e r a c tu a lly r evi ew ed t he B ankrup t cyC our t ’ s or derdeny i ng t he mot i ons beca us e the or derr efe r s t o t he “A pr i l 11, 2005 O r derof t he B a n k ru p tc yC o u rt d is m is s in g M u lla rk e y ’s F ra u d C o m p la in t.” O n A ugus t15, 2005, M ul l ar keyfi l ed a mot i on for r econs i der at i on of t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s or der

. H e di d notar gue t hat t he D i s t r i ct C our t di d not cons i der t he or der s fr om w hi ch he appea l ed; r ather , he cl ai m ed thatt he D i s t r i ctC our t“over l ookedA l t ho ug h the D efen dan t s fi l ed the m oti on pu rs uan t to 4 F ed era l R u le of

C ivil P roc ed u re 1 2 (b)(6 ), the B an k rup tcyC o u rt tr ea ted th e m o ti o n a s o n e f o r sum m aryjud g m en t. T h e C o u rt not ed t hat i f t he m ovi ng par t y i nt r oduces m at t er s out s i de of t he pl eadi ngs , t he mot i on i s t r eat ed as one fors um m aryj udgm ent u n d e r F e d e ra l R u le o f

C iv il P ro c e d u r e 5 6 , m a d e a p p lica b le to bankrupt cypr ocee di ngs underFeder al R ul es of B an k rupt cy Pr ocedur e 7056. T he B ankrupt cyC our t ’ s opi ni on s ugges t s t hat it l o o k e d a t “n u m e ro u s s u b m is s io n s m a d e b y[ M u llark e y ] in pr i orpr ocee di ngs befor e thi s C our tand othercour t s . ” 7 t he fact t hat t he [B ank rupt cy Judg e’s ] order dis m i ssi ng t he case w as noton t he m er i t s . ” H e ar gued t hat t he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed byfai l i ng t o cons i dert he mer i t s of hi s cl ai m . O n A ugu st 23, 2005, t he D ist r i ctC our tdeni ed the mot i on forr econs i der at i on as unt i m el yfi l ed and w i t hout m er i t
. M ul l ar keyt i m el yappea l ed t o t hi s C our tfr om t he deni al of hi s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on. In t he m eanti m e, t he T am bo ers m ov ed to dis m i ss M u llark e y ’s C o m p lain t p u rsu a n t to F e d e ra l R u le o f C iv il Pr oce d u r e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) , whi c h b y v i r tu e o f Rul e 7 0 1 2 ( b ) o f t he F e d e ra l R u les o f

B a n k ru p tcy P ro c e d u re , is m a d e a p p lica b le to b a n k ru p tcy pr o c e e d in g s. T h e B a n k ru p tcy C o u rt g ra n ted th e ir m ot i on t o di s m i s s i n an orde r and opi ni on dat ed A pr i l 11, 2005. 4 T h e B an k ru p tcy C o u rtco n clud ed 1 ) t h at t h e C o m p lai n t’ s al l egat i ons of fr aud w er e r ai s ed i n pr i orpr ocee di ngs and t her efor e w er e barr ed byt he d o ctri nes of r es j udi cat a and coll at eral est op pel ( or al t ernat i vely , t he en t i re contro versy8 doct r i ne) , and 2) t hatM ul l ar keydi d nothave s t andi ng t o br i ng cr i m i nal char ges and s o, t o t he ext enthi s C om pl ai ntcan be r ead to in c lu d e c ri m in a l c h a rg e s , h e la c k e d s ta n d in g to b ri n g th e m . M ul l ar key ap p eal ed the B ankrupt cyC our t ’ s or der gr ant i ng t he m ot i on t o di s m i s s . T he D i s t r i ct C our t aff i r m ed the B ankrupt cyC our t ’ s or deri n a one- page or derdat ed A ugus t26, 2005, and deni ed M ul l ar key ’ s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on on O ct ober4, 2005. M ul l ar keyt i m el yappea l ed t o t hi s C our tfr om t he deni al of hi s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on. I
. I n t hi s ap p ea l, M ul l ar keyar gues t hat bankr upt cy ju risd i ct i on did no t exis t ov er his C om plai nt, and t hat even if th e re w a s b a n k ru p tcy ju risd ictio n , the D istric t C o u rt e rre d in t r eat i ng t he mat t eras a cor e pr oce edi ng— al l ow i ng t he B ankrupt cyC our tt o ent era fi nal j udgm entpursuant t o 28 U .S .C . § 1 5 7 a n d a p p ly in g a d e f e r e n tial sta n d a rd o f

re v iew in l i eu of the r equi r ed de nov o r evi ew . M ul l ar keyfur t herar gues t hathi s C om pl ai nts h o u l d nothave be en di s m i s s ed on pr ecl us i on gr ounds , and t hathe mays eek a ci vi l r emedy for the De f e n d a n t s ’ v i o l a t i o n o f

t h e f e d e r a l RI CO s t a tu t e , 1 8 U. S

. C. § 1 9 6 4
. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew t he B ankrupt cy C our t ’ s or der under 28 U
. S. C

. § 158. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U
. S. C

. §§ 158( d) and 1291. O urr evi ew ofS e c tio n 1 3 3 4 (b ) o f T itl e 2 8 sta tes th a t “th e d istric t co u rts 5 sh a ll h a v e o rig in a l b u t n o t e x c lu siv e ju risd ictio n o f a ll c iv il p ro c e e dings ari si ng un der t i t l e 11 , or ari si ng i n or rel at ed to cas es undert i t l e 11. ” S ect i on 157( a) of t he s ame T i t l e s t at es t hat
“ E a c h d istric t c o u rt m a y p ro v id e th a t a n yo r a ll ca se s u n d e r titl e 1 1 a n d a n yo r a ll p ro c e e d in g s a risin g u n d e r titl e 1 1 o r a risin g in orr el at ed to a ca s e undert i t l e 11 s hal l be r efe r r ed t o t he 9 th e D istric t C o u rt’s r u lin g in its c a p a c itya s a n a p p e llate c o u rt is pl enary , and w e r evi ew t he bankrupt cyj udg e’s l egal d e te rm in a ti o n s d e n o v o , I n r e O ' Lexa , 476 F. 3d 177, 178 ( 3d C i r . 2007)

. W e r evi ew “i t s fac tual fi ndi ngs forcl earerr orand i t s exer ci s e of di s cr et i on forabus e ther eof. ” I n r e Uni t ed Heal thcar e Sys

. , I

nc. , 396 F. 3d 2 4 7 , 2 4 9 ( 3d C i r . 2005)

. T he first q u esti o n w e m u st reso lve is w h ethe r t h e B an k rup tcyC o u rt had s u bj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on and the fi nal adj udi cat i ve au tho ri tyto reso lve th e state-law claim s all eg ed in M u ll ark ey ’s C o m p lain t. II. 

### As wi th a l lc ourt s , c ourt s i n b ankr up tc y m us t s at i s fy them selv es of

subj ec t m atte r juris dict ion. A b ankrup tc y court ha s s ubje c t

m att e r jur i s di c t i on ove r

“ a l lc a s e s unde r

t i t l e 11 and all co r e p ro ceed in g s arisin g un d er title 1 1 , o r arisin g ina case unde r t i t l e 11, r e fe rr e d unde r s ubs e c t i on ( a ) of thi s s e c t i on, and m ay ente r a pp ropriate orders and ju dg m ents , sub ject to re view un der s ec ti o n 1 5 8 of

this ti tl e. ” 28 U .S.C. § 15 7(b)(1). 5b a n k ru p tc yju d g e s f o r t h e d is tr ic t.” A bankrupt cycour tm ay , how ever , i s s ue fi nal or der s and 6 j udgm ent s i n non- cor e pr ocee di ngs i f bot h par t i es cons ent
. 28 10 

### Th er ef ore, a bankrup tc y

court m

ust m ake an initi al det e rm i nat i onthat

the c l a i m s be fo r e i t

fa l lwi thi n the purview of s e c t i on 157 of Ti t l e 28


### . O nce thi s det er m i nat i on has been m ade, § 157 i nves t s t w o l evel s of au tho r i t yi n a bankrupt cy j udge depe ndi ng upon w hi ch of the tw o cat egor i es a cas e or p ro c e e d in g f

a lls in to
. I

n r e Seven F i elds D ev. C or p. , 505 F. 3d 2 3 7 , 2 5 4 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) ( c i t i n g 2 8 U. S

. C. § 1 5 7 )

. T h e t wo ca tego ri e s a re (1 ) “a ll ca ses u n d er ti tl e 1 1 an d all co re p ro c e e d in g s a risin g u n d e r titl e 1 1 , o r a risin g in a c a se u n d e r titl e 1 1 , ” 2 8 U
. S

. C

. § 1 5 7 (b)(1 ) ( c o lle cti v elyk n o w n as “ co re p roc ee d ing s”), an d (2) “ a p roc ee d ing that is no t a co re p ro c e e d in g b u t th a t is o th e rw is e re la te d to a c a s e u n d e r title 1 1 ,” 2 8 U .S .C

. § 1 5 7 (c )( 1 ) (“ n o n -c o re p ro c e e d in g s ” ). I d. ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)

. W hi l e it i s cl eart hata bankrupt cycour thas j ur i s di ct i on overal l pr ocee di ngs “r el at ed t o” a ba nkrupt cycas e, t he cor e/non- cor e di s t i nct i on i s r eleva ntt o t he s cope of t he ban kruptcycou rt ’s po w ers up on referral : i n co re pr oce e d ings, th e b a n k ru p tc y ju d g e m a y is s u e f in a l o rd e rs a n d ju d g m e n ts
. See 28 U
. S. C

. § 157( b) ( 1)

. I n non- cor e pr ocee di ngs , t he bankrupt cy c o u rt’s p o w e rs a re m o re c irc u m sc rib e d : itm u st s u b m it “pr opos ed fi ndi ngs of fa ctand conc l us i ons of l aw ” t o the di s t r i ct co u rt , w hi ch ent er s an or deronl yaft erconduct i ng de novo r e v i e w. See 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 5 7 (c )( 1 ).

6U .S .C . § 1 5 7 (c )( 2 ). 11 T h u s, th e c o re /n o n -c o re d istin c tio n is a c ritica l o n e w ith re sp e c t to a b a n k ru p tcy co u rt’s a d ju d ica tiv e a u th o rity . T o th is e n d , § 1 5 7 (b )(3 ) sta tes th a t: T he bankrupt cyj udge s hal l det er m i ne, on t he j udge’ s ow n m ot i on oron t i m el ym ot i on of a par t y , w hether a proc eedi ng i s a cor e pr ocee di ng u n d e r th is su b se c tio n o r is a p ro c e e d in g th a t is o th e rw i s e re la te d to a c a s e u n d e r t itle 1 1 . A d e term ination that a p roc ee d ing is no t a co re p ro c e e d in g sh a ll n o t b e m a d e so lelyo n th e b a sis t h a ti t s r e s o l u t i o n ma yb e a f f e c t e d b yS t a t e l a w. 28 U
. S. C

. § 157( b) ( 3)

. A s t he B ankrupt cyC our ti n t he i ns t ant cas e fa i l ed t o m ake a nys uch det er m i nat i on befor e gr ant i ng a di s pos i t i ve mot i on and ent er i ng fi nal j udgm ent , w e mustdeci de w h e th e r th is s tatu to ryp ro v isio n re q u ire s a b a n k ru p tcy co u rt to expl i ci t l ydet er m i ne, as a j ur i s di ct i onal pr er equi s i t e, i f a pr o ce edi ng i s cor e. T he Four t h C i r cui ti n I n r e Johns on , 960 F .2 d 3 9 6 , 4 0 0 (4 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 ), p o in ted o u t th a t: [s ] om e cour t s hol d t hatfai l ur e of the bankrupt cy cour tt o m ake a § 157( b) ( 3) fi ndi n g depr i ves t he bankrupt cycour tof j ur i s di ct i on; and the fai l ur e of t he part i es t o r eques t the fi ndi ng does notw ai ve t heirri gh tt o lat er obj ect that t he finding w as a n e c e s s a r y p re d ic a te to ju ri s d ic tio n . I n r e W ef co ,12 9 7 B .R . 7 4 9 , 7 5 0

– 5 1 (E .D .N .Y . 1 9 8 9 ) (f a ilu re to d e ter m in e w h e th e r m a tter is c o re o r n o n -c o re is n o t h a r m les s e rro r); I

n r e Ma r i l lA l a r m S

y s t e ms I nc. , 81 B
. R
. 119, 122 ( S. D
. Fl a. 1987) , aff’ d s ub n o m . Mar i l lA l ar m Sys

. v. E quit y Fundi ng , 861 F .2 d 7 2 5 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 8 8 ) (n o t p re c e d e n tial) (if bankrupt cyj udge ent er s fi nal judgmentw i t hout m aking de t erm i nati o n un der § 15 7(b)( 3) i tm ust be i nval idated; fai l ur e of pa r t i es t o m ove for d e ter m in a tio n d o e s n o t w a iv e e rro r); In re N e ll , 71 B .R . 3 0 5 , 3 1 0 (D .U tah 1 9 8 7 ) (s a m e ). O th e r c o u rts hol d t hata p arty ’ s fai l ur e t o r eques ta 157( b) ( 3) fi ndi ng w ai ves any o bjecti on t o t he l ack of s uch f in d in g . I n r e Rat h P acki ng C o. , 75 B
. R
. 137, 138 (N .D .Io w a 1 9 8 7 ), af

f ’ d s ub nom

. R ath P acki ng C o. v. U

ni ted Food , 8 6 0 F .2 d 1 0 8 6 (8 th C ir .1 9 8 8 ), ci t ed i n 1 Co l l i e r o n Ba n k ru p t c y( M B) ¶ 3 .0 1 a t 3 -5 2 (1 5 th e d . 1 9 8 9 ); R ai ney v . I nt er nat i onalH

ar ves t erC r edi tC or

p. , 5 9 B. R. 9 8 7 , 9 8 9

– 9 0 (N .D .Il l.1 9 8 6 ).
T he Four t h C i r cui tw as per s uaded byt he l at t ervi ew , concl udi ng t hatt he l ack of

a j ur i s di ct i onal fi ndi ng un d er§ 157( b) ( 3) does n o t, in its e lf

, d e p r i v e a b a n k ru p tc yc o u rt o f ju ri s d ic tio n . In re Johns on , 9 6 0 F .2 d a t 4 0 0 n .2
. W e a g re e w ith th e v iew a d o p ted b yth e F o u r th C irc u it and hol d t h at the B ankrupt cyC our tw as notdepr i ved of j ur i s di ct i on overM ul l ar key ’ s C om pl ai ntforfai l ur e t o m ake the d e ter m in a tio n u n d e r § 1 5 7 (b )(3 ). W e a re p e rsu a d e d th a t th is is13 th e c o rre c t ap p ro a c h b e c a u se § 1 5 7 (b )(3 ) o n lyre q u ire s th a t a bankrupt cyj udge det er m i ne w hether a pr ocee di ng i s cor e or non- cor e. Such a det er m i nat i on does notaff ectt he bankrupt cy cour t ’ s pow ert o heart he ca s e. R ather , i taff ect s t he form of t he bankrupt cycourt ’s d i s pos i t i on, i

. e. , w hetheri ti s fi nal and appea l abl e t o t he di s t r i ctcour t , ora r epor tand r ecomm endat i on t o be rev iew ed byt he di s t r i ctcour t
. I n addi t i on, t he t extof § 1 5 7 (b )( 3 ) su g g e sts th a t a p a rtym a yw a iv e th e rig h t to th is d e te rm in a tio n b y f

a ilin g to m a k e a tim e ly m o tio n . See, e. g. , In r e Sh eridan , 362 F. 3d 96, 100 ( 1s tC i r . 2004) ( “[T] he pr ot ect i ons affor ded byt he N or ther n P i

pel i ne co re/no n -co re di s t i nct i on m aybe w ai ved or for fei t ed, ei t herby( i ) cons ent i ng to the b an k rup tcyco u rt ’s t rea tm en t of an o therw ise n o n -co re pr ocee di ng as cor e, or( i i ) fai l i ng t o r ais e orpur s ue the i s s ue a d e q u a telyo n a p p e a l.”); I n r e J ohns on , 9 6 0 F
. 2 d a t4 0 0 ( “ By fai l i ng t o o bjectt o t he l ack of a j ur i s di ct i onal det er m i nat i on under28 U
. S. C

. § 157( b) ( 3) , and acqui es ci ng t o t he j ur i s di ct i on of t he bankr upt cy cour t t o ent er di s pos i t i ve or der s . . . C anal and R E D w ai ved anyr equi r ement t he bankrupt cycour thad t o m ake a d e t e r mi n a t i o n o f

i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S

. C. § 1 5 7 (b )(3 ).”)

. F a irlyin ter p re ted , the p u rp o se o f § 1 5 7 (b )(3 ) is to a ss u re th a t a b a n k ru p tc y c o u rt a c ts w ith th e a p p ro p ria te a d j u d i c a t i v e a u t h o r i t y i n c o n s i d e r i n g c l a i m s i n b a n k ru p t c y. W hi l e part i es m ayacqui es ce i n a bankr upt cy cour t ’ s entr yof a di s pos i t i ve or derw i t hi n it s s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on, s ubj ect m att erj ur i s di ct i on m aynei t herbe w ai ved norfor fei t ed byt he par t i es . T hus , w e ar e s at i s fi ed t hat § 157( b) ( 3) i s n ot ju risd ictio n a l.14 T he nexts t ep i n ou r a n aly s i s r equi r es us t o det er m i ne w hethe r t he B ankrupt cyC our thad s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on o v e rM u l l a r k e y ’ s Co mp l a i n t , a n d i f s o , wh e t h e rt he c l a i ms con t ai ned w i t hin i tcon st i tute cor e or non -cor e proceed i ng s. T h is d eterm ination w il l also rev ea l the B an k rup tcy C o u rt ’s adj udi cat i ve author i t yand the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s t andar d of re v iew . A s o u r o p in io n in In re Seven F i elds i l l u s t r a t e s , we c o u l d p r o c e e d b ye n g a g i n g i n a t wo - s t e p a n a l y s i s i n wh i c h we fi r s ti nqui r e w hethert her e i s fede r al j ur isdi ct i on over M ul l ar key ’ s pr ocee di ng byas ki ng w hethert he cas e i s “r el at ed to” th e b an k rup tcy , b ec au se “ related to” is the b roa d est ca tego ry of ca s es over w hi ch feder al bankrupt cy j ur i s di ct i on i s exer ci s ed. See 505 F. 3d at260. Pur s uantt o t hatappr oach, w e w oul d t hen det er m i ne w hethert he mat t eri s cor e— al l ow i ng fort he B a n k ru p tcy C o u rt to is s u e th e f in a l o rd e r th a t itd id in th is cas e— ora non- cor e m at t er , i n w hi ch the B ankrupt cyC our tw as o n lyp e rm itt e d to m a k e re c o m m e n d a tio n s to th e D istric t C o u rt. S e e id

. Howev e r , i f we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e c a s e “ a r i s e s i n” t he b an k rup tcyp roc ee d ing , then b yd ef init ion the B an k rup tcyC o u rt has bo t h s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on and the author i t yt o ent er f in a l o rd e rs . S e e id

. a t 2 5 7
. A c c o rd in g ly , w e w o u ld n o t n e e d to fol l ow t he tw o- s t ep appr oach. W e pur s ue thi s l at t ercour s e. In o rd e r t o d e ter m in e w h e th e r M u llark e y ’s c laim s f a ll w i t hi n t he B ankrupt cyC our t ’ s cor e j ur i s di ct i on by“ar i s i ng i n” the b an k rup tcy , w e m u st e x am ine the all eg ati o n s in M u ll ark ey ’s C om pl ai nt
. I n H

al perv. H al per , w e a d o p ted a c laim -b y -c laim ap p roa ch to d eterm ine th e e x te n t of a b an k rup tcyco u rt ’s15 j ur i s dict i on. 164 F. 3d 830, 839 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( ci t i ng I n r e N. P ar ent , I nc. , 221 B
. R
. 609, 626 ( B ankr

. D
. M as s . 1998) ( “[E] ach o f D e b to r’s f

o u rte e n c a u se s o f

a c tio n w ill h a v e to b e se p a ra tely anal y zed t o det er m i ne w hetheri tfal l s w i t hin the bankr upt cy cour t ’ s cor e j ur i s di ct i on. ”) )

. I n t he ca s e atbar , t he C om pl ai nt w as fi l ed pro se

. L i ke m any pr o s e pl eadi ngs , i t i s nota model of cl ari ty
. W e t hi nk, how ever , t hati ti s fai rt o char act er i ze M ull arkey ’s subm i ssi on s t o the C ou rtas fol l ow s: 1
. T h a t th e D e f

e n d a n ts k n o w in g lya n d f ra u d u len tly c o n c e a led f

ro m th e tru ste e $ 3 7 5 ,0 0 0 b e lo n g in g to hi s es t at e. 2
. T h a t th e D e f

e n d a n ts k n o w in g ly a n d f ra u d u len tly m ad e a fa lse ce rt ifi ca ti o n to th e ba n k rup tcyco u rt u n d e rp e n a l t y o f

p e r j u r y. 3. T hatt he D efe ndant s pr es ent ed a f al s e cl ai m of $ 1 8 2 ,0 0 0 to th e b a n k ru p tcy co u rt. 4
. T h a t th e D e f

e n d a n ts atte m p ted to o b tain p ro p e rty ti tl e in a fra u d u lent m an n er. 5. T hatt he D efe nd ant s comm i t t ed the cr i m e of s o l i c i t a t i o n o f

c o n s p i r a c y. 6. T hatt hese act s occurr ed overt he cour s e of s e v e r a l ye a r s a n d c a u s e d e c o n o m i c i n j u r y. 7. T hatt he D efe ndant s w ere i nvol ved i n aA s to th e re m a in in g p o r tio n o f M u llark e y ’s C o m p lain t, 7 t ho se m at t ers are s ub sum ed in ¶¶ 1– 3 an d ¶ 9, or are ot herw i se t oo vague. N ordo w e bel i eve theyw o u ld be t he bas i s forany addi t i onal m o n etaryaw ar d forM ul l ar key

. T he al l egat i ons do notappea rt o be s uffi ci entt o s t at e a ci vi l cl ai m forvi ol at i ons of t he fe der al R I C O s t atut e, w hetheri tbe for m ai l fr aud, w i r e fr aud o r b a n k ru p tc yf

ra u d

. See 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 6 4 . F u rth e rm o re , w h ile M u llark e ya ss e rte d in h is o p e n in g b rie f th a t h e c o u ld se e k a c iv il r emedy fort he Tam boer s ’ vi ol at i on of t he fe der al R I C O s t atut e, h e fa i l ed t o pr es entanyar gum enti n s uppor t
. T hus , w e dee m th is c la i m t o b e w a iv e d

. L a b o r e rs ’ I n te r n . U n io n o f N . A m ., 16 c o n s p i r a c y. 8
. T h a tt h e Def

e n d a n t s f

r a u d u l e n t l yf

o r e c l o s e d on t he pr oper t yw i t h a bogus l i en. 9. T hatt he D efe ndant s conce al ed the s al e of the pr oper t yfr om t he bankrupt cycour t/ t rus t ee t hroug h fals e st at em ents
. 1 0
. Tha t t h e De f

e n d a n t s h a v e v i o l a t e d t h e RI CO s ta tu te
. W e a re s a tis f

ie d th a t th e s e a lle g a tio n s s t a te , a t le a s t, a cl ai m for fr aud w i t h r egar d t o an ass et of t he bankrupt cyes t at e, as t he all ege d fraud o ccurr ed d uri ng t he b ank rupt cyprocess i t s el f. T he al l egat i ons of fr aud pr es ent ed i n par agr aphs one t hr ough fourand ni ne ar e p red icat ed on conduc tt hatoccurr ed dur i ng t he bankrupt cy p roces s . A s s uch, t he al l eged f r aud 7A F L- C IO v. Fos t erW

heel erE ner

gy C or p. , 26 F. 3d 375, 398 ( 3d C ir. 1 9 9 4 ) (c itatio n o m itt e d ) (“ A n iss u e is w a iv e d u n les s a p a rty r ai s es it in i t s openi ng br i ef, and fort hos e purpos es ‘ a pas s i ng r efe r ence t o an i s s ue . . . w i l l nots uffi ce t o br i ng t hati s s ue b e f o re th is c o u rt.’”) ; U

n itedS ta tes v . P e lu llo , 399 F. 3d 197, 222 ( 3d C i r . 2005) (“ It is w e ll se ttl e d th a t a n a p p e llan t’s f a ilu re to i dent i fy or ar gue an i s s ue i n hi s openi ng br i ef cons t i tut es w ai ver o f th at i ssu e o n ap p ea l. ”). 17 “i m pl i cat ed the i nt egr i t yof t he ent i r e bankrupt cypr oces s ” and w as “i ns epar abl e fr om t he bankrupt cycont ext
. ” See I n R e Sev en F i elds , 5 0 5 F
. 3 d at 26 0

– 6 1
. If w e a cc ep t M u ll ark ey ’s al l egat i ons as t rue, t he B ankrupt cyC our t gr ant ed re l i ef f r om t he autom a tic stayas a r esul tof the con du ctof the D efen dan t s, there b yall o w ing the D ef en d an ts to p roc ee d w ith the f o rec losu re and s al e of M ul l ar key ’ s s har e of the pr oper t y . I f, butfort he D efe ndant s ’ conduct , t he di s pos i t i on of t he pr oper t yw oul d have been otherw i s e and w oul d have r es ul t ed i n addi t i onal funds for t he ba n k rupt cyes t at e, i tappea r s t hatt he conduc tof t he D e f e n dan t s i m pli cat ed the i ntegr i t yof the ban kruptcyprocess. T h u s, th e a lleg a tio n s o f m isc o n d u c t h e re a re sim ilar in n a tu re to t he mi s conduct w h i ch ourC our tw as conce r ned w i t h i n I n Re Seve n F i elds and w hi ch w e concl uded fel l w i t hi n t he bankrupt cy c o u rt ’s c o re ju ri s d ic tio n . In I n r e Sev en Fi elds , t h e b a n k ru p t c yc o u r te x e r c i s ed j ur i s di ct i on overa co m p la i ntal l egi ng s t at e l aw cl ai m s of pr ofes s i onal negl i gence , fr aud and de cei t , and ne g li gent18 m i s r ep rese n tat ion ag ains t th e a cc o u n ti n g firm of Erns t& Y oung. 505 F. 3d at239. T he com pl ai nt al l eged t hat “as a r es ul tof t he w or k t hatE r ns t& Y oung per for m ed d u r i ng t he bankrupt cy pr ocee di ngs and i t s r epr es ent at i ons t o t he bankrupt cycour t , t he bankrupt cycourt d eemed t he D ebt or s t o be i ns ol vent
. ” I d. at 261. T he compl ai nt fur t heral l eged thatt hes e r epr es ent at i ons of i ns ol vencyw er e “a s i gni fi cantfac t ori n b ri n g i ng aboutt he cour t ’ s confi r m at i on of t he pl an. ” Id

. E s s ent i al l y , the par t i es w ere l ed to bel i eve thatt hey w ere i n seri ou s debt and, becau se of t hat , t he part i es s ol d t hei ras s et s atbel o w m ark et val ue, s u ffe r i ng l os s es on t hei ri nves t m ent s and fa i l i ng t o r eal i ze a re tu rn o f th e f u l l a m o u n t o f

th e irin v e s tm e n ts
. I

d. at 24 1
. In co n clud ing that “a ri s[in g ] i n ” j ur i s dict ion w as p rese n t, o u r C o u rt not ed t hat t he cl ai m s ar os e pr e- confi r m at i on i nas m uch as t he conducton w hi ch the part i es pr edi cat ed the claim s occurr ed d u ri n g th e b a n k ru p tc yp ro c e s s . I d. at 260. Second, w e not ed t hatt he al l eged mal pr act i ce “ i m pl i cat ed the i nt egr i t y of t he ent i r e bankrupt cyp r oces s ” and w as “i ns epar abl e fr om t he bankrupt cycont ext
. ” I

d. a t 2 6 0

– 6 1
. W h ile o u r In R e Seve n F i elds hol di ng i nvol ved al l egat i ons of pr ofes s i o nal m al pr act i ce, the s ame concern for m isc o n d u c t th a t d ire c tlya f f e c ts th e b a n k ru p tcy es tate e x ists in the p rese n t case
. Ind ee d , o u r C o u rts ta te d th at “f ew issue s are as im p o rt an t i n the b an k rup tcyp roc ess as th e b an k rup tcyco u rt ’s c o n c lu sio n a s to th e so lv e n c yo f a d e b to r. T h e so lv e n c ya n a ly sis i s t he corner s t one of the di s t r i but ion p lan. H er e, bot h t he i nt egr i t yof t he bankrupt cypr oces s and th e s ol vencyof t he19 D ebt or s have been dr aw n i nt o ques t i on. ” I d. Pr es um abl y , i n our cas e, M ul l ar key ’ s i nt er es ti n t he pr oper t yati s s ue w oul d have h a d a n e f

f e c t o n th e b a n k ru p tcy co u rt’s e v a lu a tio n o f h is sol ven cyhad he b een ab l e to real i ze t he v al ue o f t hat i nter est th ro u g h s a le o f

th e p ro p e rt y . B as ed on t he for egoi ng, w e conc l ude thatt he B ankrupt cy C our thad s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on ove rt he C om pl ai ntfi l ed by M u llark e y . B e c a u se th e m a tte rs w e re c o re , the C o u rt p ro p e rly exer ci s ed fi nal adj udi cat i ve author i t yovert he mat t er , and the D i s tr ict C our tdi d noterri n appl y i ng a def er ent i al s t andar d of r e v i e w. III
. T he B ankrupt cyC ou rte rr ed, how ever , w i t h r es pectt o t he m er i t s . O n A pr i l 11, 2005, t he B ankrupt cy C our t fi l ed an or der g ran ti n g the D ef

en d an t’ s M o ti o n to D ism iss M u ll ark ey ’s Co mp l a i n t
. Th e Ba n k ru p t c y Co u r t h e l d t h a t M u l l a r k e y ’ s c l a i ms w er e pr ecl uded byt he doctr i nes of r es judi cat a, col l at er al es t opp el, and al t ernat i vel y , t he ent i r e contr over s ydoctr i ne, beca us e “[ a] l l of [hi s ] ar gum ent s have be en r epea t edl yr ej ect ed byt hi s C our t , byt he di s t r i ct cour t on appea l and on s ubs equent m o tio n s f

o r r e c o n s id e ra tio n , a s w e l l a s b yth e s ta te c o u rt .” B a s e d o n th e re c o rd b e f o re u s , w e a re c o m p e lle d to d is a g re e . A

.20 A s par to f it s anal y s i s of t he r es j udi cat a and c ol l at er al es t oppel doctr i nes , t he B ankrupt cyC our tnot ed t hat t her e i s no di s put e as t o par t y i dent i t y . I t al s o found “that t he c lai m s and issue s inv o lving [M u ll ark ey ] an d the D ef en d an ts .
. . are id e n tica l to th o se p re v io u slyra ise d a n d lit ig a ted n o t o n lyin th is C o u rt , b u t i n the d istri ct an d stat e c o u rt s as w ell

. ” T h at C o u rt sta ted th a t th e lan g u a g e in M u llark e y ’s p re se n t C o m p lain t is s i m i l art o s ubm i s s i ons he m ade i n pr i orpr ocee di ngs befor e the B ankrupt cyC our tand othercourt s . Fi nal l y , t he B ankrupt cy C our tas s er t ed thatal l of M ul l ar key ’ s cl ai m s w ere cons i der ed an d rejected in “it s init ial d eterm ination g ran ti n g the T am b o ers r el i ef f r om t he a u tom at i c s t ayi n M ar ch 2001, as w el l as i n t he D ebt or ’ s m ot i on fora s t ayof t he St ayR el i ef O r der

. ” T he doctr i ne of r es j udi cat a bar s notonl ycl ai m s t hat w e re b ro u g h t in a p re v io u s a c tio n , b u t a lso c laim s th a t co u ld h a v e b e e n b ro u g h t. P os t v. H ar t f or d I ns . C o. , 501 F. 3d 154, 169 ( 3d C i r . 2007)

. I t“pr ot ect [s ] l i t i gant s fr om t he bur den of r el i t i gat i ng an i dent i cal i s s ue w i t h t he same par t yorhi s pr i vy and

. . . pro m o t[ e s] j ud i ci al econ om ybypreven t i ng need l ess l i t i gati on. ” Id

. ( quot i ng P arkl an e H osi ery C o. v. Sh ore , 439 U .S . 3 2 2 , 3 2 7 (1 9 7 9 )). B o th N e w Je rse ya n d f e d e ra l law a p p ly res jud icata o r claim p rec lusion w h en three c ircu m stan ce s are p re se n t: “(1 ) a f

in a l ju d g m e n t o n th e m e rits in a p rio r su it inv o lv in g (2) the sam e p arti es o r t h eir privies a n d (3) a s ubs equents ui tbas ed on t he same caus e of act i on. ” Id

. ( quot i ng L u b rizol C or p. v. E xxon Corp. , 9 2 9 F
. 2 d 9 6 0 , 9 6 3 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 1 )).21 I n addi t i on, N ew J erse y court s bart he r el i t i gat i on of fi n all y det er m i ned i s s ues t hr ough t he doctr i ne of c ol l at er al es t oppel

. C ol l at er al es t oppel “bar s r el i t i gat i on of anyissue w h ich w a s a c tu a llyd e ter m in e d in a p rio r a c tio n , g e n e ra lly betw een the sam e part i es, in v o lv i ng a differ ent cl ai m or cause of ac t i on. ” T

a ru s v . B o ro u g h o

f P in e Hill , 916 A

. 2d 1036, 1050 ( N
. J
. 2 0 0 7 ) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed)

. A par t yas s er t i ng col l at er al e sto p p e l m u st s h o w th a t ( 1) t he i s s ue t o be pr ecl uded i s i dent i cal to t he i s s ue deci ded i n t he pr i orpr ocee di ng; ( 2) t he i s s ue w as actual l y l i t i gat ed i n t he pr i orpr ocee di ng; ( 3) t he courti n t he pr i orpr ocee di ng issue d a fi nal j udgm enton t he merit s ; ( 4) t he det er m i nat i on of t he i s s ue w as es s ent i al t o t he pr i orj udgm ent ; and ( 5) t he part y agai ns t w hom t he doctr i ne i s as s er t ed w as a part yt o orin p ri v i t yw i t h a part yt o t he ear l i erpr ocee di ng. Tw p. of Mi ddl et ow n v. Si m on , 9 3 7 A

. 2 d 9 4 9 , 9 5 4 (N

. J. 2 0 0 8 ). T he appl i cat i on of t he col lat era l es t oppel doctr i ne i s not aut om at i c, and s houl d n o tbe appl i ed “i f t her e ar e s uffi ci ent count er vai l i ng i nt er es t s . ” Ve l a s q u ez v . Fr anz , 589 A

. 2d 143, 153 ( N
. J
. 1 9 91) ( quot i ng In re C oruzzi , 95 N
. J
. 557, 568 ( 1984) )

. I m por t ant l y , t hi s doctr i ne pre cl udes r el i t i gat i on onl yof ques t i ons “di s t i nct l yputi n i s s ue” and “di r ect l ydet er m i ned” adver s el yt o t he p artyagai ns tw hi ch the es t oppel i s as s er t ed. N

. J.

- P hi l a. P r es byt er

y of the Bi bl e Pres byt er i an C hur ch v. N

. J. S tate B d. of

HigherE duc. , 6 5 4 F. 2 d 8 6 8 , 8 7 6 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 8 1)S ect i on 36 2(e) reads: 8 ( 1) T hi r t yday s af

ter a r eques tunders ubs ect i on ( d) of t h is se cti on forr el i ef f r om t he s t ayof any actagai ns tpr oper t yof t he est at e unders ubs ect i on ( a ) o f th is s e c tio n , su c h sta yis te rm in a ted w ith r es pect t o t he par t y i n i nt er es t m aki ng such r eques t , unl es s t he court , afte rnot i ce a nd a hear i ng, or der s s uch st ay cont i nued i n eff ect pendi ng t he conc l us i on of, oras a r es ul tof, a fi nal hear i ng and det er m i nat i on unders ubs ect i on ( d) of

22 ( quot i ng C i t

y of P l ai nfi eld v. P ubl i c Ser v. G as and E l ec. , 412 A

. 2d 759, 7 6 5

– 6 6 ( N
. J
. 1980) )

. “M or eover , undert he N ew J er s eyrul e, if the j udgm enti s bas ed on one orm or e of s ever al g ro u n d s, b u t d o e s n o t ex p re ss lyre lyo n a n y o f th e m , n o n e is c o n c lu siv e lye sta b lish e d , sin c e a su b se q u e n t co u rt c a n n o t tell w hati s s ue ori s s ues w er e i n fac tful l yadj udi cat ed. ” Id

. ( ci t i ng E t t i n v. A va Tr uck Leas i ng, I nc. , 25 1 A .2 d 2 7 8 , 287 (N

. J. 1 9 6 9 ))

. T he B ankrupt cy C our t ’ s r el i ance on i t s s t aypr ocee di ngs t o s uppor tpr ecl us i on, ei t herbyr es j udi cat a orcol l at er al es t oppel , w as err or . T he pri or bankrupt cyor der s r es pect i ng t he m o ti o n to st ay w ere n o t fin al jud g m en ts, an d b y th e ir n a ture cannothave pr ecl us i ve ef fec t on t he i ns t ant act i on. T he hea r i ng o n a m o ti o n fo r reli ef

f ro m s ta yis m ea n t t o b e a su m m ary p r o c e e d i n g , a n d t h e s t a tu t e r e q u i r e s p r o mpt a c t i o n by t he bankrupt cycour t
. 11 U
. S. C

. § 362( e)

. Sect i on § 362( e) 8t hi s s ect i on. A hear i ng undert hi s s ubs ect i on m ay be a pr el i m i nary hear i ng, or m aybe cons ol i dat ed w ith th e f

in a l h e a rin g u n d e r su b se c tio n (d ) o f th is s ect i on. T he court s hal l or der s uch s t aycont i nued i n e f f e c tp e n d i n g t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e fi nal h e a rin g u n d e r s u b se c tio n (d ) o f th is s e c tio n if th e re is a re a so n a b le lik e lih o o d th a t th e p a r ty oppos i ng r el i ef f

r om s uch st ay w i l l pr evai l att he concl us i on of s uch fi nal heari n g . I f t he hea r i ng under t hi s s ubs ect i on i s a pr el i m i naryhear i ng, t hen s uch fi nal hear i ng s hal l be concl ud ed not l at ert han t hi r t yday s aft ert he conc l us i on of s uch p re lim in a ry h e a rin g , u n les s th e 3 0 -d a yp e rio d is extended w i t h the con sent of the part i es i n int eres t o r f o r a sp e c if

ic tim e w h ich th e c o u r t f in d s is requi red bycom pell i ng ci rcum st ances. (2) N otw i t hst and i ng paragraph (1), in a case u n d e r c h a p ter 7 , 1 1 , o r 1 3 in w h ich th e d e b to r is a n in d iv id u a l, th e sta yu n d e r su b se c tio n (a ) sh a ll term inate o n the d ate tha t is 6 0 d ay s af ter a r eques ti s m ad e b y a part yi n i nt er es tunder su b sec ti o n (d), un less-- (A ) a f inal d ec isi o n is r en d ere d b ythe c o u rt dur i ng t he 60-da y per i od begi nni ng on t he dat e of t he r eques t ; or (B ) suc h 6 0 -da yp eriod is ex tend ed

-- ( i ) byagr eementof al l par t i es i n i nt er es t ; or ( i i ) by t he cour t for s uch spec i fi c per i od of t i m e as t he c o u r t f

i n d s i s r e q u i r e d f

o r g o o d c a u s e , as 23d e sc rib e d in f in d in g s m a d e b yth e c o u rt. 1 1 U .S .C . § 3 6 2
. 24 pr ovi de s th ata bankrupt cycour tm us thol d a pr el i m i naryhear i ng on a mot i on t o l i ftt he s t ayw i t hi n thi r t y d ay s fr om t he dat e the m o tio n is f

ile d , o r t h e s ta yw il l b e c o n s id e re d lif te d

. I d. In addi t i on, r el i ef f

r om a s t ayi s obt ai ned by a simpl e mot i on, Fed. R
. B ankr

. P. 4001, and i t i s a “c ont es t ed mat t er , ” r athert han a n a d v e rs a ry p ro c e e d in g . G r el l a v. Sal em F i ve C ent Sav. B ank , 42 F. 3d 26, 33 ( 1s tC i r . 1994) ( ci t i ng Fed

. R
. B ankr

. P. 9014; A d v iso ryC o m m itt e e N o te to F e d .R .B a n k r.P . 7 0 0 1 (“ [ R ]e q u e sts fo r reli ef fro m the au tom ati c stay d o n o t com m en ce an ad v ersa ry p ro c e e d in g .” ))

. T he Fi r s tC i r cui ti n G re lla r ecogni zed that a hea r i ng on a mot i on forr el i ef f

r om s t ay is a “s um m arypr ocee di ng of l i m i t ed ef

fec t , ” and that [t ]h e li m it ed g rou n d s set fo rt h in the statu tory lan g u a g e , rea d in th e c o n te x t o f th e o v e ra ll s cheme o f

§ 3 6 2 , a n d c o mbi n e d wi t h t he pr el im ina r y , s um m arynatur e of the r el i ef f r om s t aypr ocee di ngs , have l ed mostcour t s t o fi nd t hat s uch hea r i ngs do noti nvol ve a ful l adj udi cat i on on t he mer i t s of c lai m s, d ef en ses, or c o u n ter c laim s, b u t sim p ly a d e ter m in a tio n a s to w h e th e r a c re d ito r h a s a c o lo ra b le c laim to p ro p e rt yo f

th e e s ta te
.T h e F irst C irc u it cite d a s s u b s ta n tial a u th o rityf o r th is 9 p ro p o sitio n : Es t at e C ons t r uct i on C o. v. Mi l l er & Sm i th H oldi ng C o. , I nc. , 14 F. 3d 213, 2 19 ( 4t h C i r . 1994) ( hear i ngs t o l i ftt he s t ayar e s um m ary in char act er , and count er cl ai m s ar e not p re c lu d e d late r if

n o t ra ise d a t th is s tag e ); I n r e Vi t r eous St eel P r od. C o. , 911 F. 2d 1223, 1232 ( 7t h C i r . 1990) ( ques t i ons of t he v a lid ityo f

lien s a re n o t at iss u e in a § 3 6 2 h e a r in g , b u t o n ly w h e th e r th e re is a c o lo ra b le c laim o n p ro p e rty ); I n r e Johns on , 7 5 6 F
. 2 d 7 3 8 , 7 4 0 (9th C ir

. 1 9 8 5 ), c e r t
. d eni ed , 474 U
. S. 828 (1 9 8 5 ) (re lief

f ro m sta yh e a rin g s a re lim ited in sc o p e to adequa cyof pr ot ect i on, equi t y , and nec es s i t yt o an ef fe ct i ve r eor gani zat i on, and val i di t yof under l y i ng cl ai m s i s not lit i ga ted ); N

at’ lW estm i nst er B an k, U

. S. A

. v. R oss , 130 B
. R
. 656, 6 5 8 (B a n k r. S .D .N .Y .), a ff ’ d , 962 F. 2d 1 ( 2d C i r . 1991) ( deci s i on t o l i fts t ayd o es not i nvol ve det er m i nat i on of co u n terclai m s, an d thu s tho se c lai m s are n o t prec lud ed lat er). 25 4 2 F
. 3 d at 32

– 3 3
. T h e C o u rtco n clud ed that “[ t] h e statuto ry 9 and pr ocedur al s chemes , t he l egi s l at i ve hi s t or y , and t he ca s e l aw a ll d ire c t th a t th e h e a rin g o n a m o tio n to lift th e st a y i s n o t a pr ocee di ng fordet er m i ni ng t he mer i t s of the under l y i ng s ubs t ant i ve cl ai m s , defe ns es , orcount er cl ai m s . ” I d. a t3 3
. As t he Sevent h C i r cui t al s o poi nt ed out , at i s s ue i n a § 362 hea r i ng is o n lyw h e th e r th e r e is a c o lo ra b le c laim o f a lien o n p ro p e rty o f t h e estate. In re Vi t r eous St eel P r od. C o. , 911 F. 2d 1223, 1234 ( 7t h C i r . 1990)

. A s s uch, i t hel d t hat t he det er m i nat i on of t he § 362 mot i on w as nota bart o t he pr os ecut i on of t he a d v e rs a ry c o m p la in t b e f o re it. Id

. at1234. I texpl ai ned thatT he document s fi l ed byM ul l ar key ’ s at t or neyoppos i ng t he 10 M ot i on t o V aca t e do notex pl i ci t l ycont ai n anyal l egat i ons of fr audul entconduct

. T he document s do det ai l t w o at t empts by M ul l ar keyt o s el l hi s pr oper t y . T he document s i ndi cat e thathe s ecur ed a w i l l i ng buy eron A pr i l 11, 2000, fo r $ 4 8 0 , 000, of w hi ch $240, 000 w oul d go t o M ul l ark ey . H i s C hapt er13 pl an p ro v id e d f

o r p a y m e n t o f

h is s h a re o f

h is d e b t f

ro m th e sa le p roce eds , and he pl anned t o amend hi s pl an t o pr ovi de fort he t r eatm entof t he D efe ndant s as s ecur ed cr edi t or s . T he $240, 000 s um w as $43, 000 m or e than the amount cl ai m ed t o be due t o t he D efen dan t s. T he sub m i ssi on s to t he B ank rupt cyC ou rtal so c o n ten d e d th a t th e D e f e n d a n ts fa iled to p ro d u c e c e rta in 26 C ol l at er al es t oppel i s nota barbeca us e the onl yi s s ues nece s s ar i l ydeci d ed at t he § 362 hea r i ng w er e w hether t he B ank had a col or abl e cl ai m of a l i en and w hethert he a m o u n to f

t h a tl i e n e x c e e d e d t h e v a l u e o f t h e p r o p e r t y. I tw as not nece s s aryt o r eac h ques t i ons of .

. . col l u[s i on] w i t h t he B ank, orques t i ons of pr efe r ent i al t r ans fers u n d er § 547, orques t i ons of fr audul entconvey ance s un der § 54 8, or qu est i on s of co m m erci al reas on ableness of t he s al e unders t at e l aw . I ndeed, none of t hes e i s s ues coul d pr oper l y have been r ai s ed, and ther efor e the § 362 h e a ri n g w a s n o t r e s ju d ic a ta a s to th o s e is s u e s . I d.
H e re , th e in iti a l b a n k ru p tcy or d e r v a c a tin g th e a u to m a tic s t ay , d ated M arch 13, 2001, i s br i ef a nd does nots ugges tt he b asis u p o n w h ich t h e co u rt g ran ted re li ef fro m the s tay
. T h ere 10document s and pr el i m i narys ubdivis i on coul d notbe obt ai ned w i t hout t hem. M ul l ar keyal l eges t hatt he D efe ndant s coul d have re a p p lied f

o r su b d iv isio n a p p ro v a l w h e n it lap se d , b u t f a iled to do s o. A s a r es ul t , M ul l ar keycoul d not obt ai n t he document s he n e e d e d t o s e l l t h e l a n d u n t i l No v e mb e r5 , 2 0 0 0 , a n d a tt h a tt i me h e re a p p lied f

o r su b d iv isio n . It a p p e a rs d u rin g th e c o u rse o f th is t hatM ul l ar keyl os thi s i ni t i al buy er . A l s o befor e the B ankrupt cy C our tw as t he con tenti on t hatM ul l ar keyhad anotherbuy eron M ar ch 6, 2001, for$329, 000, of w hi ch he w oul d have be en ent it led t o hal f. T hi s amount w oul d have be en l es s t han w hat th e D e f e n d a n ts c la im e d th a t h e o w e d th e m . O n M ay29, 2001, M u ll ar key , t hen pr ocee di ng pr o s e, 11 m oved the B ankrupt cyC our t to vacat e the pr evi ous or der vaca t i ng s t ay . I n an or deras br i ef a s t he fi r s t , and w i t h s i m i l ar l ack of expl anat i on, hi s m ot i on w as deni ed on J une 1 9 , 2 0 0 1. T he docke t i ng r ecor d on ap p eal i ndi cat es t hataft ert he B ankrupt cy C our t i ni t i al l y vaca t ed t he st ay , M ul l ar key s entt he 27 i s not hi ng i n t he r ecor d t o s ugges t t hatanyal l egat i ons of fr aud h a d b e e n m a d e u p to th is po in t. It w o u ld c e rta in lyb e re a so n a b le t o i n f e r t h a t t h e b a n k ru p t c y j u d g e v a c a t e d t h e s t a y b e c aus e of M u llark e y ’s c o n tin u e d f a ilu re to m a k e h is re g u lar m o n th ly m o rtg a g e p a y m e n ts o u tsid e o f h is C h a p ter 1 3 p lan , as w e ll as h is fa il u re to se ll h is i n terest i n the pro p erty
. In l igh t o f th e re co rd o n a p p e a l, an d th e su m m a ryn a tu re o f sta y p ro c e e d in g s in gener al , w e concl ude thatt he B ankrupt cyC our t ’ s i ni t i al gr antof reli ef d o es n o t hav e p re c lu sive ef fe ct on M u ll ark ey ’s C o m p lain t. 11C our t a l et t er det ai l i ng a sche m e byt he D efe ndant s . M ul l ar key e ss e n tiallya rg u e d th a t th e D e f e n d a n ts h a d d e v ise d a p lan to inten ti o n all yd en yh im h is sha re o f p artne rship asse ts, an d w ere eff ectuat i ng t hatpl an bym aki ng m i s r epr es ent at i ons to t he b a n k ru p tcy co u rt in o rd e r to h a v e th e sta y l if ted so th e yc o u ld p roc ee d w ith an o u tsi d e co n tr ac t to sel l the p rop erty
. T h e re co rd gi ves no i ndi cat i on t hatt hes e all egat i ons w er e l i t i gat ed, co n side red an d rejected b y the B an k rup tcy C o u rt
. If the yw ere rej ect ed by t he C our t , t her e i s no i ndi cat i on t hat t heyw ere esse n t i al t o i t s j udgm ent
. I ndeed, i ti s pos s i bl e thatt he or ders w er e bas ed on one orm or e of s ever al gr ounds , butnei t heror der e x p re ss lyre lies o n a n yo f th e m , n o n e is c o n c lu siv e ly e sta b lish e d , an d , as su c h , w e f a il t o se e h o w th is C o u rt c a n tell forpurpos es of cl ai m ori s su e p rec lus i on w hati s s ue ori s s ues w er e i n f

a c tf u l l ya d j u d i c a t e d

. Th u s , t h i s o r d e rd o e s n o th a ve p r e c l u s i v e e ff

e c t o v e rt h e i n s t a n tCo mp l a i n tf o rt h e s a me r eas ons t he B ankrupt cyC our t ’ s i nit ial o r derdoes nothave p re c lu siv e e f

f e c t. 28 T he B ankrupt cy C our t al s o i ndi cat ed t hat t he N ew J er s ey s t at e courtfor ecl os ur e proc eedi ngs have pr ecl us i ve ef fec tover th e in sta n t C o m p lain t. W e a r e a t a lo ss to d e ter m in e h o w to aff or d t hes e pr ocee di ngs p r ecl us i ve ef fec t
. T he r ecor d on app eal provides us no indi cat i on as t o w hethert h e re w as a m erit s d eterm ination d u ri n g the N ew Jerse ystat e c o u rt ’s fo rec losu re p roc ee d ing

. T h e D ef en d an ts i n it iat ed a f

o rec losu re act i on i n s t at e courtand a j udgm ent of for ecl os ur e w as ent er ed on M a r c h 2 5 , 1 9 9 9 whe n M u l l a r k e y f a i l e d t o a p p e a r a nd a S h eriff ’s S ale w as sc h ed u led f o r M ay1 0 , 1 9 9 9
. T h e S h eriff ’s29 Sal e di d nott ake pl ace as s chedul ed and i t subse quent l yw as s t ay ed w hen M ul l ar keyfi l ed a Chapt er13 bankrupt cypet i t i on. A ft ert he B ankrupt cy C our tvaca t ed the s t ayon M ar ch 13, 2001, M u llark e ya lso so u g h t to sta yth e S h e rif f ’s S a le in sta te c o u rt. T he s t at e courtdeni ed M ul l ar key ’ s r eques taft era hea r i ng, and t he propert y w as sol d on or abo ut Jul y 6, 20 02 , t o the T am bo ers . T he r ecor d, byw ayof t he B ankrupt cy C our t ’ s or der di s m i s s i ng M ul l ar key ’ s C om pl ai n t , d o e s i n d i c a t e thatM ul l ar key su b m itt e d a c e rtific a tio n to th e sta te c o u rt in s u p p o rt o f h is m o tio n to sta yth e S h e rif f ’s S a le, a n d th a t in it h e sp e c if ica lly al l eged thatthe De f

e n d ant s fr audul ent l ys t at ed thatt he mort gage w as due, t hatt he D efe ndant s f r a u dul ent l yconce al ed the contr act of s al e for t he prope r t y fr om hi m and the B ankrupt cyC our t , and t hatt he D efe ndant s fr audul ent l ys t ol e the pr oper t y . T he t extof t h e o rderfai l s t o enl i ght en us , how ever , beca us e i tes t abl i s hes onl yt hatM ul l ar keyat t empt ed t o r ai s e hi s al l egat i ons of fr aud. N o th in g in th e re c o rd su g g e sts th a t th e sta te c o u rt a c tu a lly c o n sid e re d th e se a ll e g a tio n s, le t alo n e p a ss e d o n th e m in deny i ng t he m ot i on. U nder N ew J er s eyl aw , i f t he j udgm entof a courti s bas ed on one or m or e of se ver al gr ounds , butdoes not expr es s l yr el y on any of t hem, none i s concl us i vel yes t abl i s hed, i n t hatanothercour ts ubseq uent l yr evi ew i ng t hatj udgm ent c a n n o t te ll w h a t is s u e o r i s s u e s w e re f u l l y a d ju d ic a te d

. E tti n , 2 5 1 A

. 2 d at 28 7 (cit ati o n o m itted).
B eca us e t hi s i s t he onl y i nfor m at i on i n t he r ecor d that ad d resse s w h a t o c c u rred in the N ew Jerse ystat e c o u rt , w e a re30 hes i t antt o concl ude t h at e i t hert he B ankrupt cypr ocee di ngs or t he N ew J er s eys t at e courtpr ocee di ngs barcons i der at i on of M u lla rk e y ’s C o m p la in t. B
. T he B ankrupt cyC ou rt alt ernat i vel yr el i ed on the N ew J er s ey en t i r e contr over s ydoctr i ne t o barcons i der at i on of M ul l ar key ’ s C om pl ai nt
. T hi s doctr i ne

re q u ire s th a t a p e rso n a ss e rt in o n e a c tio n a ll r el at ed cl ai m s agai ns ta part i cul aradver s aryorbe pr ecl uded fr om br i ngi ng a s econd act i on bas ed on th e o m itt e d c laim s a g a in st th a t p a rty . T h is re f lec ts N e w J e r s e y’ s v i e w t h a t t h e “ e n t i r e c o n t r o v e r s y, r athert han i t s cons t i tuent caus es of act i on, i s t he u n it o f lit ig a tio n . A p lai n ti f

f m u st s e e k c o m p lete v in d ic a tio n o f

th e w ro n g h e c h a rg e d .” Me likia n v . C o rr a d e tti , 791 F. 2d 274, 279 ( 3d C i r . 1986) (c ita tio n s o m itte d ). U n d e r t h e e n tir e c o n tr o v e rs yd o c tr in e , a par t y cannot w i t hhol d par t of a contr over s y for l at erli ti g at i on even w h en t he w i t hhel d component i s a s epar at e and in d e p e n d e n tly c o g n iz a b le c a u s e o f a c tio n . P ar am ountA vi at i on C o rp . v. A g u sta , 178 F. 3d 132, 137 ( 3d C i r . 1999)

. T he doctr i ne has t h ree purpos es : ( 1) compl et e and f i nal di s pos i t i on of ca s es t hr ough avoi dance of pi ece m eal deci s i ons ; ( 2) fai r nes s t o par t i es t o an act i on and t o ot her s w i t h a mat er i al i nt er es ti n i t ; and ( 3) e f f ic ie n c ya n d a v o id a n c e o f w a s te a n d d e la y . Id

. ( ci t i ng31 D i Trol i o v. A nt i l es , 662 A

. 2 d 4 94, 502 ( N
. J
. 1995) )

. A s an equ i t able doctr i ne, i t s appli cat i on i s fl exibl e, w i t h a case

- by

- case a p p re c ia tio n f

o r f a ir n e s s to th e p a rt ie s . Id

. T h e e n ti re c o n t r o v e r s yd o c t r i n e d o e s n o ta p pl y t o b a rc o mp o n e n tc l a i ms t hat a r e u n k n o wn, u n a r i s e n , o r u n a c c ru e d a t t h e t i me o f t he o ri g in a l a c tio n . M

ys t i c I s l e D ev. Corp. v. P ers ki e & N ehm ad , 6 6 2 A .2 d 5 2 3 , 5 3 0 (N .J . 1 9 9 5 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ). A s is r ef lected b yo u r de term ination that M u ll ark ey ’s cl ai m i s a cor e m at t er , w e fi nd t hat i t r el at es t o conductt hatw as i nt r i ns ic t o bot h t he bankrupt cyand for ecl os ur e pr ocee di ngs ( w hi ch w er e occ ur r i ng s i m ul t aneous l y )

. A s M u ll ar key char act er i zes i t , “t he pr i or p roc eedi ng i t s el f [w as ] t he al l eged v e h icle o f th e d e f

e n d a n t’s m isc o n d u c t.” In su c h a n in sta n c e , it s eems i l l ogi cal and unfa i rt o hol d t he pr i orpr ocee di ng p re c lu siv e o f

su b se q u e n t cla im s re latin g to th a t m is c o n d u c t. See, e. g. , K

- Land C or

p. N o. 28 v. Landis Sew er age Aut h. , 800 A

. 2d 86 1, 86 8 (N

. J. 20 02 ) ( “T he en t i re cont rovers ydo ct ri ne [is ] a n e q u itab le p re c lu sio n a ryd o c trin e w h o se p u rp o se s a re to encour age compre hens i ve and c o n clus ive lit igat i on d e ter m in a tio n s, to a v o id f ra g m e n ta ti o n o f

lit ig a tio n , an d to p ro m o te p a rt yf

a ir n e s s a n d ju d ic ia l ec o n o m y a n d e f f ic ie n c y. . .

. ”). Leis ur e Technol ogy v. K l i ngbei l H oldi ng C o. , 349 A

. 2d 9 6 (N

. J. S u p er. 19 7 5 ), reit era tes th e im p o rt an ce o f th e e n ti re c o n tro v e r s y d o c trin e a n d c o n f irm s th a t itis a p p lica b le to fo rec losu re p roc ee d ing s. H o w ev er, i t il lustrat es t h at the e n ti reN e w Je rse y R u le o f C o u rt 4 :7 -1 p ro v id e s, in re lev a n t p a rt: 1 “E x ce p t as o therw ise p rov ided b yR
. 4 :64 -5 (f o rec losu re a c tio n s) a n d R . 4 :6 7 -4 (su m m a ry a c tio n s), a p lea d in g m a ysta te as a count er cl ai m anycl ai m agai ns tt he oppos i ng par t yw hether ornotar i s i ng outof t he tr ans act i on oroccurr en ce tha ti s t he s ubj ectm at t er of t he oppos i ng par t y ' s cl ai m . ” I n tur n, R
. 4: 64- 5, pr ovi des i n p art , “U nl es s t he courtot herw i s e or der s on not i ce and forgood caus e s how n, cl ai m s forfor ecl os ur e of m or t gages s hal l notbe j oi ned w i t h non- ger m ane c l ai m s ag ai ns tt he m or t g ag o r o r ot herper s ons l i abl e on the debt

. O nl yger m ane co u n terclai m s an d cro ss-claim s m ayb e p le ad ed in f o rec losu re a c tio n s w ith o u t lea v e o f c o u rt. N o n -g e rm a n e c lai m s s h a ll i ncl ude, butnotbe l i m i t ed t o, cl aim s o n t he i ns t rum entof obl i gat i on evi dencing t he mort gage de bt , as s um pt i on a g re e m e n ts a n d g u a ra n te e s .” 32 co n tr o v ersyd o ctri n e h a s a n arro w er a p p li ca ti o n to f o rec losu re proceed i ng s, extendi ng on l yt o “g erm ane” c ou nter cl ai m s. 1 Leis ur e Tech. , 1 3 7 A

. 2 d at 98

– 9 9
. “ T h e u se o f th e w o rd

‘ ger m ane’ i n t he l anguage of t he rul e undoubt edl yw as i nt ended t o l i m i tcount er cl ai m s i n for ecl os ur e ac t i ons t o cl ai m s ar i s i ng outof t he mort gage tr ans act i on w hi ch i s t h e su bjectm at t erof t he for ec los ur e ac t i on. ” Id

. I n Leis ur e Technol ogy , t he tr i al jud g e h ad g ran ted th e p lai n ti ff ’s m o ti o n to stri k e the d ef en d an t’ s fi r s taff i r m at i ve def

ens e of fr audul ent conduct on t he partof t he p la in tif f

. Id

. at 97. Speci fi cal l y , t he def endantal l eged thatt he p la in tiff h a d b re a c h e d th e u n d e rly in g a g re e m e n t in re latio n to w h ich the m or t gage ha d been e xecut ed, t her ebycaus i ng t he d e f e n d a n t to b e u n a b le to m a k e h is m o rt g a g e p a y m e n ts
. Id

. In33 addi t i o n , t he j udge al s o gr ant ed the pl ai nt i ff’ s m ot i on t o s ever t he def endant ’ s count er cl ai m and t r ans fer i tt o t he Law D i vi s i on. Id

. O n appea l , t he s uper i orcour tconcl uded thatt he tr i al j udge too k too n arro w a v iew o f th e sc o p e o f p erm issi b le C h an ce ry litig a tio n . I

d. at98. T he court not ed t hat , “her e t he t hrus tof t he count er cl ai m i s t he as s er t i on t hat p lai nt i ff ha d br eac hed the under l y i ng agr eementi n r el at i on t o w hi ch the m or t gage w as exec uted and i nt er fer ed w i t h defe ndant s ’ r i ght s undert hat agreem ent. In t he u sual l yun de rsto od sense of the w ord, t hese cl ai m s w er e germ ane t o t he for ecl os ur e ac t i on. ” I d. at99. B ecause co un t ercl ai m s in forecl osure proceed i ng s m ust b e “germ ane, ” and be caus e germ ane c l ai m s ar e thos e “a r i s i ng outof t he mort gage tr ans act i on w hi ch i s t he s ubj ect m att er of t h e f o r e c l o s u r e a c t i o n , ” w e a r e s a t i s f i e d t h a tt h e c l a i ms M ul l ar keyas s er t ed then , and now , ar e notger m ane t o t he for ecl os ur e pr ocee di ng. I ndeed, M ul l ar keydoes notcont end t hatt he D efe ndant ’ s act i ons caus ed t he defa ul t of hi s m or t gage obl i gat i ons . R ather , hi s cl ai m s ar e bas ed on the ac t i ons and r epr es ent at i ons of t he Tam boer s d ur i ng t he bankrupt cy p ro c e e d in g s . U l t i m at el y , gi ven the nat ur e of the ca s e and the fa ctt hat M ul l ar keypr ocee ded pr o s e dur i ng m uch of i t , i t i s di ffi cul tfor us t o di s cern w hats peci fi c cl ai m s he i s now al l egi n g as c o m p a r e d t o w h i c h c l a i m s h e d i d a n d d i d n o tr a i s e p r e v i o u s l y. M or e i m por t ant l y , iti s uncl eari f M ul l ar keycoul d have r ai s ed t he pr es entcl ai m s i n for ecl os ur e, i

. e. , w hether t heyhad ac cruedT h e m o tio n s so u g h t: 1 ) a d isc re tio n a ryc h a n g e in v e n u e to 1 the d istri ct co u rt ; 2) j o ind er o f S teve n K artzm an (M u ll ark ey ’s f o r me r a t t o r n e y ) a s a n e c e s s a r y p a r t y ; 3 ) “ a r e f e r e n c e t o a 34 at t h at tim e o r w ere ev en justi ciab le. B ec au se th e e n ti re cont r over s ydoctr i ne i s an equi t abl e pri n ci pl e underw hi ch the C our tm ayexer ci s e i t s j udi ci al di s cr et i on bas ed on t he part i cul ar c ir c u m s ta n c e s in h e re n t in a g iv e n c a s e , M ys t i c Is l e D ev. C or

p. , 6 6 2 A .2 d a t 5 2 9

– 3 0 , w e d e c lin e to a p p lyth e d o c trin e in th is ca se. Ind ee d , the N ew Jerse yco u rt s in a p p ly ing the e n ti re cont r over s ydoctr i ne have di s pl ay ed a he i ght ene d conce r n for pr o s e li ti gant s , par t i cul ar l yi n s um m aryornon- t r adi t i onal p ro c e e d in g s . See, e. g. , C a ff er at a v. P eys er , 597 A

. 2d 1101, 1104 ( N
. J
. Super

. A

. D
. 1991) ( “I tw oul d obvi ous l ybe c o u n ter p ro d u c tiv e in th e e x tre m e w e re a p re c lu sio n a ryru le enfor ced i n s uch a w ay as t o penal i ze, w i t houtanyconcomi t ant b en ef it to th e pa rt ies o r to th e sy stem , a pro se litig an t’ s par t i ci pati o n i n t he s m al l cl ai m s m edi at i on pr oces s orot her e x p e d ited p ro c e s s in g m e c h a n ism . S u c h e n f o rc e m e n t w o u ld convertt he ent i r e contr over s y doctr i ne fr om an equi t abl e devi ce into a tr ap fo r t h e u n su sp ec ti n g . T h at i s n o t i ts fu n cti o n . ”).
I V. F inally , b o th p arti es a g ree that the D istri ct C o u rt r evi ew ed the w r ong B ankrupt cyor derw hen i trejected M u ll ark ey ’s ap p ea l of

the B an k rup tcyC o u rt ’s fo u r i nt erloc u tory or der s . M ul l ar keyi n it ia l l yappea l ed the or der s t o t he

1pr os ecut i ng aut hor i t y ”; and 4) r econs i der at i o n o f t he or der d ism iss in g o n e o f

th e d e f e n d a n ts to h is c o m p lain t. 35 B an k rupt cyC our t , and theyw er e eve ntual l yt r ans ferr ed t o t he D i str ict C our tw her e theyw er e gi ven ci vi l act i on num ber05- 2010. O n ap p ea l, i n an or derbear i ng t he s ame ci vi l act i on num ber , t he D i s t r i ctC our tr efe r r ed t o t he appe al as “fr o m an A pr i l 11, 2005 O r derof t he B ankrupt cyC our t d i s m i s s i ng a C om pl ai ntfi l ed b y R i char d M ul l ar key

. ” A ccor di ngl y , on r emand t he D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d cons i dert he m er i t s of M ul l ar key ’ s appea l of t he B ankrupt cy C our t ’ s deni al of hi s four m o tio n s . V
. B eca us e t he r ecor d befor e us couns el s a conc l us i on th a t th e B a n k ru p tcy erre d o n th e m e rits w ith re sp e c t to its hol di ng t hatM ul l ar key ’ s cl ai m s ar e barr ed byvar i ous pr ecl us i on doct r i nes , w e w i l l r ever s e and r emand t o t he D i s t r i ctC our tt o cons i dert he mer i t s of M ul l ar key ’ s cl ai m s , as w el l as hi s appea l of t he B ankrupt cyC our t ’ s deni al of hi s four m o tio n s .