Case No. 05-42189, Adversary No. 05-5004.United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia, Rome Division.
October 30, 2006
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION [69]
PAUL BONAPFEL, Bankruptcy Judge
On September 19, 2006, the Plaintiff filed, in this adversary proceeding, a “Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.” [69]. The Plaintiff contends that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to determine the dischargeability of debts that the Plaintiff’s complaint has put in issue. The Court notes that dismissal of the Plaintiff’s Complaint seeking determination of the dischargeability of claims under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) would result in such debts being discharged by operation of 11 U.S.C. § 523(c).
This proceeding is an action initiated by the Plaintiff to determine the dischargeability of debts under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a). Because it arises under the provisions of Title 11, the District
Page 2
Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). It is a core proceeding because it seeks a determination of the dischargeability of debts. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I). This Bankruptcy Judge, therefore, is authorized to hear this proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) and L.R. 83.7, NDGa. There is, therefore, no basis to dismiss this adversary proceeding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The allegation in the Debtors’ motion that the Debtors filed a “bogus bankruptcy petition,” and a recitation in a footnote that accompanies it, indicate that the Plaintiff may be requesting dismissal of the bankruptcy case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A bankruptcy case is initiated by the filing of a petition. 11 U.S.C. § 301(a). The District Court has jurisdiction of bankruptcy cases, 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a), which are properly referable to a bankruptcy judge under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) and L.R. 83.7, NDGa. There is no basis for dismissal of the bankruptcy case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Footnote 1 also may be construed as a request for revocation of the discharge entered in this case on October 7, 2005 and dismissal of the bankruptcy case. At the hearing conducted on this motion on October 18, 2006, the Court heard presentations from the Debtors as to the circumstances concerning the filing of this bankruptcy case. The Court finds nothing about the filing of this case, the administration of it, or the Plaintiff’s allegations that would cause the Court to consider setting aside the discharge or dismissing the bankruptcy case.
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction [69], is DENIED.
Page 3
The Clerk is directed to mail copies of this Order to the persons shown on the Distribution List.
IT IS SO ORDERED.