Court Opinion

ID: 9440120
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 07:21:54.468689+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:27:13.003623
License: Public Domain

SELYA, Circuit Judge,
(concurring in the judgment).
I recognize that the appellant did not make his jurisdictional argument 'with crystalline clarity, either to the BAP or in this court. There are, however, extenuating circumstances, and in my view the LaGuardiafWeinstein exception is available here. I am comfortable in joining in the affirmative exercise of discretion needed to invoke that exception, and, thus, reaching the important issue of classification (core versus non-core) that permeates this proceeding. While that issue is not free from doubt, my resolution of it tracks Judge Cyr’s: this omnibus disciplinary proceeding, which did not arise out of any matter(s) directly affecting the bankruptcy court’s ability to administer one or more ongoing cases, is a non-core proceeding. Consequently, the bankruptcy court lacked the authority to enter a final judgment.
I therefore concur in the vacation of the improvidently entered judgment and the concomitant remand. If the appellant’s conduct is deserving of discipline beyond the period of enforced suspension that he already has experienced — a matter on which I take no view — it is the district court which, in the circumstances of this proceeding, must impose it.