IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: :

:

ACR MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., et. al., :

: Bankruptcy No. 04-27848-MBM

 Debtors. : (Jointly Administered)

................................................................:...............................................................

ACR Management, L.L.C., et. al., : Chapter 11

Movants, :

:

v. : Doc. No. 1806, 1380, 1381, 1384 &

: 2131

Blaise Alexander, Gerald Freeman, :

Reuben Acosta, Rhea Dowling, :

Respondents. :

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF COURT

AND NOW, this 26th day of August, 2005, upon consideration of (a) the

Ninth Omnibus Objection to Certain Disputed Proofs of Claim, which motion is

brought by the instant debtors (hereafter “the Debtors”) to object to, inter alia,

the pre-petition claims of the above-named respondents (hereafter “the

Respondents”), coupled with the Debtors’ Motion to Estimate Such Claims to be

$0.00 for the Purposes of Distribution (Doc. No. 1806), (b) the motions for relief

from stay brought by the Respondents so that they may henceforth pursue

prosecution of their pre-petition claims in nonbankruptcy forums (Doc. No’s.

1380, 1381 & 1384), (c) the parties’ briefs devoted to the issue of whether this

Court has the subject matter jurisdiction to resolve and/or estimate the

Respondents’ claims for purposes of distribution, and (d) the Debtors’ motion to

strike the Respondents’ late-filed brief devoted to the aforementioned issue

Case 04-27848-MBM Doc 2137 Filed 08/26/05 Entered 08/26/05 10:58:17 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 6
2

(Doc. No. 2131);

and subsequent to notice and hearings on the Debtors’ motions and the

Respondents’ stay relief motions,

it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follows:

(a) This Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(b), 157(b)(2)(B) and

157(c)(1), has at least noncore (i.e., “related to”), if not core, subject

matter jurisdiction to rule, as a matter of law, as to the validity of (i.e.,

to allow or disallow as a matter of law) the Respondents’ claims, even for

distribution purposes and even if such claims constitute personal injury

tort claims, at any point prior to a trial regarding such claims (i.e., during

the pretrial stage), see In re UAL Corp., 310 B.R. 373, 383

(Bankr.N.D.Ill. 2004) (resolution of an objection to the legal validity of a

personal injury tort claim is a core matter susceptible to disposition by final

judgment in a bankruptcy court because such resolution does not

constitute the liquidation of such claim, but even if such resolution

constitutes claim liquidation, thereby making such resolution a noncore

matter pursuant to § 157(b)(2)(B), a bankruptcy court may nevertheless

propose a ruling to the district court regarding the legal validity of such

claim given that “§ 157(b)(5) ... does not affect pretrial proceedings”); In

Case 04-27848-MBM Doc 2137 Filed 08/26/05 Entered 08/26/05 10:58:17 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 6
1Expanding on the Court’s ruling that precedes the instant footnote, if

Respondents’ claims do not constitute personal injury tort claims, then this Court,

pursuant to § 157(b)(2)(B), would obviously have core subject matter jurisdiction

to either allow or disallow such claims, or to estimate or liquidate such claims for

distribution purposes. If such claims constitute personal injury tort claims, then,

in accordance with the UAL and G-I Holdings decisions, this Court would have at

least noncore, if not core, subject matter jurisdiction to dispose of such claims as

a matter of law at the pretrial stage. Consequently, if Respondents’ claims

constitute personal injury tort claims, then the only thing that the Court would not

have subject matter jurisdiction to do, by virtue of § 157(b)(5), is to resolve such

claims by way of a trial. The Court notes that if such claims constitute personal

injury tort claims but such claims are disposed of as a matter of law during the

pretrial phase, then it would practically matter not whether such disposition is

categorized as a core matter or a noncore matter given that, either way, the

review of such disposition by the District Court would be de novo. 

3

re G-I Holdings, Inc., 323 B.R. 583, 613-616 (Bankr.D.N.J. 2005) (same);1

(b) In light of the immediately preceding ruling set forth in paragraph (a) and

the discussion set forth in footnote 1 herein, the Court sees no need, and

thus declines, to presently rule as to whether Respondents’ claims

constitute personal injury tort claims – the Court determines that it

need, and thus the Court will, only address whether such claims constitute

personal injury tort claims if such claims cannot be resolved during the

pretrial stage vis-a-vis each of such claims;

(c) The Respondents’ request that this Court mandatorily abstain from

resolving their claims is denied with prejudice. Such request is denied

not only because it is inappropriately made from a procedural standpoint,

that is other than by way of the requisite motion called for under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1334(c)(2), but also on substantive grounds. In particular, if

Case 04-27848-MBM Doc 2137 Filed 08/26/05 Entered 08/26/05 10:58:17 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 6
4

Respondents’ claims do not constitute personal injury tort claims, or even

if they do but such claims can be disposed of as a matter of law during the

pretrial phase, then the disposition of such claims constitutes a core

matter; the foregoing is significant because this Court may not mandatorily

abstain from core matters (i.e., those that arise either under title 11 or in a

case under title 11), see 28 U.S.C.A. § 1334(c)(2) (West 2004)

(mandatory abstention only applies with respect to noncore matters, that is

those for which a bankruptcy court’s subject matter jurisdiction is of the

“related to” variety). On the other hand, if Respondents’ personal injury

tort claims constitute personal injury tort claims the disposition of which

can only constitute a noncore matter, then mandatory abstention is barred

by virtue of the express directive to that effect in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(4);

(d) The Respondents’ request that this Court discretionarily abstain from

resolving their claims, presuming arguendo that such request was

properly made without a motion, is nevertheless denied with prejudice. 

The Court so rules to the extent that the disposition of such claims

constitutes (a) a core matter because the Court will not discretionarily

abstain with respect to a core matter, and (b) a noncore matter because (i)

such disposition is already presently holding up administration of – in

particular, a distribution to unsecured creditors from – the Debtors’

bankruptcy estate, and (ii) a trial, if one is necessary, can nevertheless still

Case 04-27848-MBM Doc 2137 Filed 08/26/05 Entered 08/26/05 10:58:17 Desc Main

Document Page 4 of 6
2One such motion has thus far been filed and is scheduled for hearing on

September 6, 2005, at 3:00 p.m., namely the Debtors’ motion for sanctions

wherein the Debtors seek, inter alia, the disallowance of Respondents’ claims.

5

potentially be had in the Virgin Islands if the District Court in this district

sees fit to transfer adjudication of such claims to such locale subsequent

to the pretrial stage, see 28 U.S.C.A. § 157(b)(5)(West 1993);

(e) The Respondents’ motions for relief from the automatic stay (Doc.

No’s. 1380, 1381 & 1384) are, in light of the foregoing rulings, DENIED

WITH PREJUDICE;

(f) The Debtors’ objections to, and motion to estimate, Respondents’

claims (Doc. No. 1806) are CONTINUED – the Debtors, if they are

presently prepared to do so, shall henceforth file dispositive motions

regarding such claims;2 and

(g) The Debtors’ motion to strike the Respondents’ late-filed brief (Doc. No.

2131) is DENIED AS MOOT.

IN SUMMARY, (a) the Respondents’ motions for relief from the automatic stay

(Doc. No’s. 1380, 1381 & 1384) are denied with prejudice, (b) the Debtors’

objections to, and motion to estimate, Respondents’ claims (Doc. No. 1806) are

continued, and (c) the Debtors’ motion to strike the Respondents’ late-filed brief

(Doc. No. 2131) is denied as moot.

BY THE COURT

Case 04-27848-MBM Doc 2137 Filed 08/26/05 Entered 08/26/05 10:58:17 Desc Main

Document Page 5 of 6
6

 /s/ 

M. BRUCE McCULLOUGH,

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

cm: David B. Salzman, Esq.

Kirk B. Burkley, Esq.

Ronald Marmo

Lee J. Rohn, Esq.

Norma Hildenbrand, Esq.

Dolores Innamorato

(Parties to be served electronically)

Case 04-27848-MBM Doc 2137 Filed 08/26/05 Entered 08/26/05 10:58:17 Desc Main

Document Page 6 of 6