author: MARCUS, Circuit Judge:

text:
    PTA-FLA, INC., a Florida corporation, Plaintiff, v. ZTE USA, INC., a New Jersey corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Daredevil, Inc., NTCH West-Tenn, Inc., NTCH-WA, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.
    No. 15.15159
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Date Filed: 12/15/2016

      Joshua Evan Austin, PTA-FLA Inc., Columbia, SC, Matthew B. Baggett, Bag-gett Law, Jacksonville, FL, Shannon Gallagher, Gallagher & Moore, Irvine, CA, for Defendants-Appellants.
    Laura E. Besvinick, Matthew Bray, Julie E. Nevins, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, LLP, Miami, FL, Frank T. Spano, Thomas P. Schmidt, Hogan Lovells US LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before MARCUS and DUBINA, Circuit Judges, and GOLDBERG, Judge.

       Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, Judge for the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

   MARCUS, Circuit Judge:

In this appeal, we are asked to decide a number of jurisdictional questions arising from the district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award. The case began as a contract dispute between two corporations—PTA-FLA, Inc., and ZTE USA, Inc.—commenced in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Shortly thereafter, three corporations affiliated with PTA-FLA filed similar cases against ZTE USA and its parent corporation, ZTE Corp., in several different federal district courts. All of the parties involved in these disputes participated in a consolidated arbitration proceeding that resulted in' a zero-dollar award binding ZTE USA and the four affiliated plaintiff corporations. ZTE USA then moved the district court in the Middle District of Florida to reopen PTA-FLA’s case, join the three other plaintiff corporations to the case, and, finally, to confirm the arbitrator’s award against all four plaintiff corporations. But before the district court could rule on that motion, PTA-FLA—the original plaintiff—voluntarily dismissed its claims. The district court eventually confirmed the arbitral award against all parties, concluding that it had subject matter jurisdiction (grounded in diversity of citizenship) to confirm the award against the original parties and supplemental jurisdiction to confirm the award against the later-joined parties despite PTA-FLA’s voluntary dismissal and the reduction in the amount in controversy.

The three joined parties now appeal the confirmation of the award, claiming that the district court was without subject matter or supplemental jurisdiction. After careful review, and having the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that the district court properly exercised its jurisdiction and, accordingly, affirm.

I.

We lay out in some detail the complex procedural history surrounding this case in order to properly address the district court’s power to entertain the matter. The appeal arises from a contract entered into by PTA-FLA, Inc., and ZTE USA, Inc., pursuant to which ZTE USA provided PTA-FLA with telecommunications equipment. PTA-FLA, in turn, is affiliated with three other companies: Daredevil, Inc.; NTCH-WA, Inc.; and NTCH-West Tenn., Inc. All four entities are owned and controlled by Eric Steinmann, and they operate together under the name “ClearTalk,” The ClearTalk entities each offer prepaid and flat-rate cell phone service to customers with poor credit or who otherwise cannot-open accounts with major cell phone providers, While only-PTA-FLA’s contract was originally relevant in this case, each of the ClearTalk entities entered into a similar contract with ZTE USA that was governed by a Master- Supply Agreement (“MSA”) identical to the one governing PTA-FLA’s contract.

PTA-FLA eventually discovered that the telecommunications equipment- provided by ZTE USA was defective, lacking in functionality, or limited in functionality. PTA-FLA contacted ZTE USA as required by the MSA’s dispute-resolution provision, but the parties were not able to resolve the dispute through “good faith senior level negotiations.” If the negotiations failed, the MSA provided that

either party may ... initiate an arbitration proceeding which shall be administered by the International Centre for Dispute Resolution of the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) in accordance with its International Arbitration Rules. The place of arbitration shall be Jacksonville, Florida. The language of the arbitration shall be English. The parties to this Agreement expressly agree that any order or award of the arbitrator shall be final and binding and may be enforced in any court of competent jurisdiction.

Despite this provision, PTA-FLA sued ZTE USA in state court (the Fourth Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County, Florida) seeking damages for alleged breach of warranty, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, rescission, and fraud in the inducement. Similar suits were filed across the country by the other ClearTalk entities, including suits by - Daredevil, NTCH-WA, NTCH-West Tenn., and Ste-inmann against both ZTE USA and ZTE Corp. Ultimately, ten suits were filed in six different jurisdictions.

ZTE USA removed the original suit from state court to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, grounding jurisdiction on the diverse citizenship of the parties, ZTE USA then moved to compel arbitration. The district court granted that motion, and stayed its case pending the resolution of the arbitration proceedings. The other ClearTalk cases were all referred to the same arbitration proceeding and either dismissed or stayed pending the resolution. The arbitration proceeding went forward as a single unified proceeding that bound ZTE USA, PTA-FLA, Daredevil, NTCH-WA, and NTCH-West Tenn, The arbitrator, former Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Mar jor B. Harding, noted that “[t]he entities ha[d] been collectively referred to by counsel throughout the arbitration as Clear-Talk.”

After considering evidence presented over ten days, the arbitrator determined that “[t]he ClearTalk entities shall take nothing from this action and the Respondents ,.. owe nothing in regard to” the claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, breach of warranty, or overpayment. The arbitrator also decided that “Respondents shall take nothing from this action and Claimants known as Clear-Talk owe nothing in regard to” ZTE’s [claim for damages due to novnpayment. The decision referred to the ClearTalk entities au a single unit; it did not specify different conclusions or awards concerning the independent component entities that made up ClearTalk.

On the same day the arbitrator issued his.award, ZTE USA returned to the District Court in the Middle District of Florida and moved to reopen the case, join the other parties to the arbitration (Daredevil, NTCH-WA, NTCH-West Tenn., and Ste-inmann), confirm the final arbitral award as to all parties, and enter a final judgment. PTA-FLA moved the district court to stay the case pending a request that the arbitrator correct an ambiguity as to which parties were bound by the award. Daredevil, NTCH-WA, and NTCH-West Tenn. entered limited appearances to oppose ZTE USA’s motion to confirm for similar reasons, and Steinmann objected to joining the suit at all. The arbitrator corrected the award on March 11, 2014, and clarified that the award involved only ZTE USA, not ZTE Corp., because Steinmann’s claims were- the only claims asserted against ZTE Corp. and they had been dismissed,.

While the motion to confirm was pending, ZTE USA sought to transfer all the related cases to the Judicial Panel for Mul-tidistrict Litigation (JPML) for consolidation. The district court ordered the case stayed pending the JPML’s order. Then, with both ZTE USA’s motion to confirm and the consolidation request pending, PTA-FLA voluntarily dismissed its claims in the original Middle District of Florida proceeding. Because “there [was] no monetary award to confirm and PTA-FLA [did] .not seek to vacate the Award,” PTA-FLA saw it as “appropriate to terminate the action forthwith” “due to the lack of further justiciable controversy.” After the JPML denied ZTE USA’s motion to transfer, the district court requested briefing and conducted a hearing on PTA-FLA’s voluntary dismissal.

The district court ultimately decided that PTA-FLA could voluntarily dismiss its own claims against ZTE USA. The court also dismissed ZTE Corp. from the case because the arbitration award did not address any claims against ZTE Corp. However, it decided that the voluntary dismissal did not extinguish ZTE USA’s motion to confirm and thus reopened ZTE USA’s case, joining Daredevil, NTCH-WA, and NTCH-West Tenn. as parties; Eight months after the dismissal, the district court entered another order rejecting the Joined Parties’ arguments that it had improperly exercised subject matter and supplemental jurisdiction.

The district court confirmed the arbitration award as to ZTE USA, PTA-FLA, Daredevil, NTCH-WA, and NTCH-West Tenn. The latter three parties, collectively referred to as the “Joined Parties,” have appealed the confirmation on jurisdictional grounds, claiming that the district court did not have subject matter or supplemental jurisdiction to confirm the award.

II.

We review rulings on subject-matter jurisdiction de novo. Peebles v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., 431 F.3d 1320, 1324 (11th Cir. 2005). “The exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is left to the discretion of the district court; we review for an abuse of discretion.” Beck v. Prupis, 162 F.3d 1090, 1099 (11th Cir. 1998).

At oral argument, counsel for the Joined Parties conceded that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to confirm the arbitration award against the original parties, PTA-FLA and ZTE USA. Even without this concession, the district court properly reached that conclusion.

A.

It is by now axiomatic that the inferior federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They are “empowered to hear only those cases within the judicial power of the United States as defined by Article III of the Constitution” and that have been entrusted to them .by a jurisdictional grant authorized by Congress. Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994). “Congress has the constitutional authority to define the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and, once the lines are drawn, limits upon federal jurisdiction ... must be neither disregarded nor evaded.” Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200, 207, 113 S.Ct. 2035, 124 L.Ed.2d 118 (1993) (quotation and citation omitted). And because the Constitution unambiguously confers this jurisdictional power to the sound discretion of «Congress, federal courts “should proceed with caution in construing/ constitutional 'and statutory provision® dealing with [their] jurisdiction.” Victory Carriers, Inc. v. Law, 404 U.S. 202, 212, 92 S.Ct. 418, 30 L.Ed.2d 383 (1971).

A defendant may remove a civil action filed in a state court to the federal district court for the district in which the action is pending if the district court would have had jurisdiction over the suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The “district court must have at least one of three types of subject matter jurisdiction: (1) jurisdiction under a specific statutory grant; (2) federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; or (3) diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).” Baltin v. Alaron Trading Corp., 128 F.3d 1466, 1469 (11th Cir. 1997). The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), Pub. L. No. 68-401, 43 Stat. 883 (1925), codified as amended at 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., is “something of an anomaly in the field of federal-court jurisdiction” because while it “creates a body of federal substantive law ... it does not create any independent federal-question jurisdiction.” Moses H. Cone Mem. Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 25 n.32, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983). Instead, the FAA requires an independent jurisdictional foundation. See Hall Street Assocs., LLC v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 581-82, 128 S.Ct. 1396, 170 L.Ed.2d 254 (2008); Peebles, 431 F.3d at 1325 (“The Federal Arbitration Act does not confer subject matter jurisdiction ... nor does it create independent federal question jurisdiction. Independent grounds for subject matter jurisdiction must be demonstrated.”) (citation omitted).

Because the FAA does not contain its own statutory grant of jurisdiction and does not create federal question jurisdiction, the district court must have diversity jurisdiction over the original parties to entertain prearbitration proceedings. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000” and the action is between “citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Notably, diversity jurisdiction is measured at the time the action is filed. See Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Glob. Grp., LP, 541 U.S. 567, 571, 124 S.Ct. 1920, 158 L.Ed.2d 866 (2004). There is no dispute that the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida had diversity jurisdiction over the parties at the time the cause was removed to federal court, and, indeed, PTA-FLA has never challenged the removal as being improper. PTA-FLA is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in South Carolina, and ZTE USA is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in Texas. The arbitration took place in Jacksonville, Florida, within the Middle District of Florida. And the amount in controversy stated in the complaint was $3.8 million, the full value of the telecommunications-equipment contract. Plainly, the district court had the power to entertain the complaint and to compel arbitration.

B.

Diversity jurisdiction gave the district court not only the power to compel arbitration, but also the power to confirm the resulting arbitration award. It is by now undisputed that “when a federal district court grants a motion to compel arbitration it retains jurisdiction to confirm or vacate the resulting arbitration award under 9 U.S.C. §§ 9-10.” TranSouth Fin. Corp. v. Bell, 149 F.3d 1292, 1297 (11th Cir. 1998); see also Marine Transit Corp. v. Dreyfus, 284 U.S. 263, 275-76, 52 S.Ct. 166, 76 L.Ed. 282 (1932) (“[WJhere the court has authority under the [FAA] ... to make an order for arbitration, the court also has authority to confirm the award or to set it aside.”). Indeed, Section 9 of the FAA reads, in relevant part:

If the parties in their agreement ;have agreed that a judgment of the court shall be entered upon the award made pursuant to the arbitration, and shall specify the court, then at any time within one year after the award is made any party to the arbitration may apply to the court so specified for an order confirming the award, and thereupon the court must grant such an order unle.ss the award is vacated, modified, or corrected as prescribed in sections 10 and 11 of this title, If no court is specified in the agreement of the parties, then such application may be made to the United States court.in and for the district within which such award was made. Notice of the application shall be served upon the adverse party, and thereupon the court shall have jurisdiction of such party as though he had appeared generally in the proceeding.

9 U.S.C. § 9. This provision “carries no hint of flexibility. On application for an order confirming the arbitration award, the court ‘must grant’ the order ‘unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected.’ ” Hall Street Assocs., 552 U.S. at 587, 128 S.Ct. 1396 (quoting 9 U.S.C. § 9). The Middle District of Florida is the situs of the arbitration proceedings, and notice was properly served on the Joined Parties. Quite simply, because the district court had the power to compel arbitration, it retained the power to confirm the arbitration aw'ard against the original parties.

Moreover, it is also abundantly clear that the district court’s jurisdiction to entertain the motion to confirm was unaffected by the reduced amount in controversy. Again, diversity jurisdiction is determined at the time of filing the complaint or, if the case has been removed, at the time of removal. See Tillman v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, 253 F.3d 1302, 1306 n.1 (11th Cir. 2001); Grupo Dataflux, 541 U.S. at 570, 124 S.Ct. 1920 (“It has long been the case that ‘the jurisdiction of the court depends upon the state of things at the time of the action brought.’ ”) (quoting Mollan v. Torrance, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 537, 539, 6 L.Ed. 154 (1824)). The Supreme Court has explicitly noted that even when a plaintiff, “after .removal, by stipulation, by affidavit, or by amendment of his pleadings, reduces the claim below the requisite amount,” that decrease “does not deprive - the district court of jurisdiction.” St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 292, 58 S.Ct. 586, 82 L.Ed. 845 (1938); see also Poore v. American-Amicable Life Ins. Co. of Texas, 218 F.3d 1287, 1291 (11th Cir. 2000) (“[E]vents occurring after removal which may reduce the damages recoverable below the amount in controversy requirement do not oust the district court’s jurisdiction.”), overruled in part on other grounds by Alvarez v. Uniroyal Tire Co., 508 F.3d 639, 640-41 (11th Cir. 2007). Thus, the fact that ZTE USA sought to confirm a zero-dollar arbitration award did not strip the district court of jurisdiction. The district court had the power to compel arbitration on account of diversity jurisdiction, and it had the power to confirm the award, regardless of any subsequent change to the amount in controversy.

C.

Nor did PTA-FLA’s voluntary dismissal of its action divest the court of jurisdiction to confirm the. award. The district court disagreed with the Joined Parties and found that ZTE USA’s motion to confirm was “similar to a counterclaim,” which PTA-FLA could not unilaterally dismiss. We are not persuaded by this rationale. But we affirm the district court’s jurisdictional determination because the motion to confirm was in the nature of a collateral claim in an action over which the district court undeniably exercised diversity jurisdiction.

1.

Voluntary dismissal is governed by Fed. R, Civ. P. 41(a). Pursuant to this rule, voluntary dismissal may occur with or without a court order:

(1) By the Plaintiff.

(A) Without a Court Order.... [A] plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing:
(i) a notice of dismissal before' the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment; or
(ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.
(2) By Court Order; Effect. Except as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the plaintiffs request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper. If a defendant has pleaded a counterclaim before being served with the plaintiffs motion to dismiss, the action may be dismissed over the defendant’s objection only if the counterclaim can remain pending for independent adjudication. Unless the order states otherwise, a dismissal under this paragraph (2) is without prejudice.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). As the former Fifth Circuit has noted, “Rule 41(a)(1) means precisely what it says.” Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 506 F.2d 914, 916 (5th Cir. 1975). According to the plain text of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), only the filing of an answer or a motion for summary judgment terminates a plaintiffs ability to voluntarily dismiss its claims without a court order.

As the district court correctly noted, a motion to confirm an arbitral award is neither an answer nor a motion for summary judgment. If the drafters of Rule 41 had intended to include pleadings of similar nature to answers and motions for summary judgment, they could easily have done so. Indeed, the federal courts have regularly found that various other motions and pleadings are insufficient to foreclose plaintiffs from voluntarily dismissing their claims. See, e.g., Swedberg v. Marotzke, 339 F.3d 1139, 1142 (9th Cir. 2003) (determining that a motion to dismiss is not a motion for summary judgment for purposes of Rule 41); Hamilton v. Shearson-Lehman American Exp., Inc., 813 F.2d 1532, 1534-35 (9th Cir. 1987) (determining that a motion to, stay the case and compel arbitration is not an answer or motion for summary judgment for purposes of Rule 41); Merit Ins. Co. v. Leatherby Ins. Co., 581 F.2d 137, 142-43 (7th Cir. 1978) (same); American Soccer Co., Inc. v. Score First Enterprises, a Div. of Kevlar Indus., 187 F.3d 1108, 1111—12 (9th Cir. 1999) (determining that a motion for and hearing on a preliminary injunction is not a motion for summary judgment for purposes of Rule 41); Pilot Freight Carriers, 506 F.2d at 916-17 (same). In the same way, a motion to confirm will not suffice.

The text is also clear in still an- . other way: Rule 41 “speaks of voluntary dismissal of ‘an action,’ not a claim.” State Treasurer of State of Michigan v. Barry, 168 F.3d 8, 19 n.9 (11th Cir. 1999) (Cox, J., specially concurring) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)). A district court cannot dismiss some claims while leaving others pending. See Taylor v. Brown, 787 F.3d 851, 857 (7th Cir. 2015) (“Rule 41(a) does not speak of dismissing one. claim in a suit; it speaks of dismissing ‘an action’—which is to say, the whole case.”) (quotations omitted). Thus, if the district court thought PTA-FLA’s voluntary dismissal was effective to dismiss its' claims, it should have dismissed the entire 'action—including the motion to confirm. Instead, the district court dismissed PTA-FLA’s claims but retained ZTE USA’s motion to confirm, calling it “similar to a counterclaim.” It determined that PTA-FLA’s voluntary dismissal did not terminate the motion to confirm, because Rule 41(a)(l)(A)(i) “does not give PTA-FLA the authority to unilaterally dismiss someone else’s claim.”

We are unpersuaded for two reasons. First, a motion to confirm is not a counterclaim. It seeks nothing from the opposing party; it does not assert new claims; and it does not rebut claims that were previously made. Moreover, even if the analogy were proper, Rule 41(a)(1)—which governs voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff—does not discuss counterclaims at all. Counterclaims are mentioned .only in Rule 41(a)(2), which governs voluntary dismissal by court order. That provision says:.

Except as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), .an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper. If a defendant has pleaded a counterclaim before being served with the plaintiffs motion to dismiss, the action may be dismissed over the defendant’s objection only if the counterclaim can remain pending for independent adjudication.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) (emphasis added). Mirroring the last sentence quoted above, the district court concluded that PTA-FLA could not dismiss its action over ZTE USA’s objection unless the motion to confirm remained pending. But Rule 41(a)(2) addresses voluntary dismissal by court order. Voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff, under Rule 41(a)(1), is expressly excepted from Rule 41(a)(2). And Rule 41(a)(1) does not require that counterclaims remain in contention. Thus, whether a motion to confirm is “similar to a counterclaim” is of no moment in this case because PTA-FLA voluntarily and properly dismissed its claims under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)®.

2.

Nevertheless, the district court’s conclusion that the motion to confirm survived PTA-FLA’s voluntary dismissal was correct for an independent reason: since the district court had the power to preside over the prearbitration proceedings, it also had independent jurisdiction to hear claims that were collateral to the proceeding. A motion to confirm is one such collateral claim.

It is long and well established “that a federal court may consider collateral issues after an action is no longer pending.” Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 395, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990); see also Putnam v. Williams, 652 F.2d 497, 502 (5th Cir. 1981) (“[W]hen the jurisdiction of the court has attached to an ancillary claim, it will not be ousted by the subsequent dismissal of the main suit on the merits.”). A collateral or ancillary issue is a claim that, on its own, “do[es] not invoke an independent basis of subject matter jurisdiction” but that is “so closely related to a case properly in federal court as to justify the conclusion that they are all part of a single case or controversy.” Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 13 Federal Practice and Procedure § 3523 (3d ed. 2004); see also Morrow v. District of Columbia, 417 F.2d 728, 740 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (noting that an ancillary matter “arises from the same transaction which was the basis of the main proceeding, or arises during the course of. the main matter”). Collateral .claims must “hav[e] a factual and logical dependence on the primary lawsuit,” and the “primary lawsuit must contain an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.” Peacock v. Thomas, 516 U.S. 349, 355, 116 S.Ct. 862, 133 L.Ed.2d 817 (1996) (quotation and citation omitted).

Adjudication of a collateral issue is an “independent proceeding[ ] supplemental to the original proceeding and not a request for a modification of the original decree.” Cooter & Gell, 496 U.S. at 395, 110 S.Ct. 2447 (quoting Sprague v. Ticonic Nat'l Bank, 307 U.S. 161, 170, 59 S.Ct. 777, 83 L.Ed. 1184 (1939)). Thus, the resolution of a collateral issue “does not signify a district court’s assessment of the legal merits” of the case. Id. at 396, 110 S.Ct. 2447. The ancillary nature of such a proceeding is further evidenced by the fact that it “can be initiated and decided after the case on which it is based is finally resolved and no longer pending.” Federated Mut. Ins. Co. v. McKinnon Motors, LLC, 329 F.3d 805, 808 n.6 (11th Cir. 2003). Preserving jurisdiction over collateral issues is “consistent with the policy and purpose of Rule 41(a)(1), which was designed to limit a plaintiffs ability to dismiss an action.” Cooter & Gell, 496 U.S. at 397, 110 S.Ct. 2447. Using this reasoning, the Supreme Court noted that even after an action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, district courts may still award costs and attorney’s fees and may still consider criminal contempt charges. Id. at 396, 110 S.Ct. 2447.

Confirmation of an arbitral award is precisely such a collateral proceeding. ZTE USA’s motion to confirm existed solely because the district court compelled arbitration. It arose from the same transaction that formed the basis of the main proceeding, over which the district court properly exercised, diversity jurisdiction. By requesting confirmation, ZTE USA did not seek a “judgment on the merits of [the] action,” id nor did it request a modification of the arbitrator’s final decree. The motion was filed after the merits of the underlying action were fully and completely resolved through arbitration. ZTE USA merely sought confirmation of the arbitral award—-exactly as it was issued by the arbitrator—so that the award would be finalized and protected against challenges in other courts. The district court thus retained jurisdiction over the motion to confirm.

III.

A.

The district court also found that it had supplemental jurisdiction to confirm the arbitration award concerning the Joined Parties. The Joined Parties appealed this decision, arguing that they fall under the exception to supplemental jurisdiction stated in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b) and thus should have been excluded from the confirmation. They reach this conclusion by characterizing ZTE USA as a party plaintiff seeking an order against the Joined Parties as defendants. These arguments are unavailing. The district court correctly asserted supplemental jurisdiction over the Joined Parties and confirmed the arbitration award against them.

In enacting § 1367, Congress heeded advice from the Federal Courts Study Committee (“Committee”), a legislatively created body that included a mix of judges, senators, congressmen, and lawyers. See Federal Courts Study Act, Pub. L. No. 100-702, 102 Stat. 4642, 4644-45 (1988). In its final report, the Committee recommended -that Congress “authoriz[e] federal courts to hear any claim arising out of the same ‘transaction or occurrence’ as a claim within federal jurisdiction, including claims that require the joinder of additional parties.” Federal Courts Study Committee, Report of the Federal Courts, Study Committee 560 (1990) (“Committee Report”). As the Committee noted, “this language is broad enough to encompass pendent claim, pendent party, and ancillary jurisdiction. The proposal thus supplies, a general background rule favoring supplemental jurisdiction.” Id. Congress adopted the Committee’s proposal with slight modifications in what is now § 1367(a):

Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) or as expressly provided otherwise by Federal statute, in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties.

28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); see also H.R. Rep. No. 101-734, at 27 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6860, 6873 (noting that § 1367 implements the Committee’s recommendations).

The Supreme Court has similarly acknowledged § 1367(a) as “a broad grant of supplemental jurisdiction over other claims within the same case or controversy, as long as the action is one in which the district courts would have original jurisdiction.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 546 U.S. 546, 558, 125 S.Ct. 2611, 162 L.Ed.2d 502 (2005). In particular, “[t]he last sentence of § 1367(a) makes it clear that the grant of supplemental jurisdiction extends to claims involving joinder or intervention of additional parties.” Id.

In this case, the district court had original jurisdiction by virtue of diversity; under the TranSouth rule, it retained jurisdiction over the motion to confirm. TranSouth Fin. Corp., 149 F.3d at 1297. While the Joined Parties were not parties to the original suit, the claims in which they are involved clearly arise from the same arbitration proceeding and award that ZTE USA sought to confirm. Like the district court, we have “no difficulty concluding that review of the arbitration between ZTE USA and at least the corporate objectors arise out of a common nucleus of operative facts as the dispute between ZTE USA and PTA-FLA.” Each of the ClearTalk entities’ claims against ZTE USA originates from similar arrangements that were governed by nearly identical MSAs. Their claims1 thus “arise from the same facts, [and] involve similar occurrences, witnesses or evidence” as PTA-FLA’s claims, so they “form part of the same case or controversy.” Hudson v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 90 F.3d 451, 455 (11th Cir. 1996); see also Palmer v. Hosp. Auth. of Randolph Cty., 22 F.3d 1559, 1566 (11th Cir. 1994) (“By its language, section 1367(a) authorizes a court to hear supplemental claims to the full extent allowed by the ‘case or controversy’ standard of Article III.”). The statute also plainly allows “the joinder or intervention of additional parties” with sufficiently related claims, such as the Joined Parties in this case. Thus, the district’s courts exercise of supplemental jurisdiction was proper.

Nor is it of any legal significance that the claims involving the Joined Parties do not independently satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement. Becausé “the threshold requirement of § 1367(a) is satisfied in cases '... where some, but not all, of the plaintiffs in a diversity action allege a sufficient amount in controversy,” Exxon Mobil, 545 U.S. at 566, 125 S.Ct. 2611, confirmation of the award as to the Joined Parties cannot be denied on this ground.

B.

The Joined Parties argue, nevertheless, that they qualify for the exception to supplemental jurisdiction found in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b). Subsection (b) reads this way:

In any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded solely on section 1332 of this title, the district courts shall not have supplemental jurisdiction under subsection (a) over claims by -plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19 of such rules, or seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24 of such rules, when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332.

28 U.S.C. § 1367(b).

The Joined Parties claim that ZTE USA “is most aptly described as the plaintiff in this case,” since it is seeking to confirm the award against them. But ZTE USA, the defendant in the original action, does not become a plaintiff by merely asserting a claim against the Joined Parties, See Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 13D Federal Practice and Procedure § 3567.2 (3d ed. 2004) (“[I]t is clear that a defendant or third-party defendant does not become a ‘plaintiff for purposes of § 1367(b) by asserting a claim.”). ZTE USA sought to add the Joined Parties to confirm an arbitration award against them; PTA-FLA originally brought no claims against the Joined Parties and the Joined Parties assert no claims against PTA-FLA. Thus, ZTE USA could be considered a “plaintiff’ only in the sense of a third-party plaintiff bringing a claim against the Joined Pai’ties as third-party defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 14(a)(2).

However, while this Court has not addressed the question ' of precisely which plaintiffs are excepted from jurisdiction under § 1367, every appellate court that has done so is in agreement. The First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Circuits have each concluded that “claims by plaintiffs” in § 1367(b) refers to claims by only the original plaintiffs to the action—not third-party plaintiffs, counter plaintiffs, or cross plaintiffs. The Seventh and Tenth Circuits have also favorably mentioned this interpretation, although those courts have not fully engaged with the argument and have not made affirmative conclusions on the issue. Wright and Miller similarly observe that § 1367(b) “does not apply to claims asserted by any party other than the plaintiff’; the provision therefore “plays no role in claims, such as counterclaims and crossclaims, asserted by defendants or third-party defendants.” Wright & Miller, 13D Federal Practice and Procedure § 3567.2. We join our sister circuits on this point. The claims at issue are not “claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties” and do not fall under the exception found in § 1367(b); the district court properly exercised supplemental jurisdiction over them in this case’.

Furthermore, any resort to legislative history would not alter this analysis. The Joined Parties say that exercising supplemental jurisdiction in this case “would fly in the face of congressional intent to heighten suspicion of those that initiate an action to circumvent federal jurisdiction restrictions.” But the legislative history reveals that Congress was wary of gamesmanship on the part of plaintiffs, not defendants—the drafters were concerned about “encourag[ing] plaintiffs to evade the jurisdictional requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 by the simple expedient of naming initially only those defendants whose join-der satisfies section 1332’s requirements and later adding claims not within original federal jurisdiction against other defendants who have intervened or been joined on a supplemental basis.” H.R. Rep. No. 101-734, at 29 (emphasis added). ZTE USA, the original defendant, was seeking to join the parties in this case; any concern about gamesmanship is absent here.

C.

Finally, we add these thoughts. To the extent that prudential concerns bear on the issue at all, they yield the same result. We think it indisputable that declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in this case would harm judicial economy and risk producing conflicting judgments. Section 1367 was enacted with precisely these concerns in mind. As' the Committee expressly observed, “[sjupplemental jurisdiction facilitates the joinder in litigation of all claims arising out of the same transaction. The benefits in judicial economy and in party and witness convenience are apparent.” Committee Report at 547 (emphasis added). The legislative history behind § 1367 reflects similar considerations: Congress noted that “[supplemental jurisdiction has enabled federal courts and litigants to take advantage of the federal procedural rules on claim and party join-der to deal economically—in single rather than multiple litigation—with related matters, usually those arising from the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences.” H.R. Rep. No. 101-734, at 28. By allowing consolidation in this manner, “the efficiency and convenience are obvious.” Wright & Miller, 13D Federal Practice and Procedure § 3567.

These concerns are especially salient in this case, in which one unified, streamlined arbitration award bound five parties that had originally been involved in ten lawsuits across six jurisdictions. Absent the vehicle of supplemental jurisdiction, the district court in the Middle District of Florida would have found itself only able to confirm the arbitration award as to PTA-FLA. ZTE USA would then have been required to seek separate confirmation as to Daredevil, NTCH-WA, and NTCH-West Tenn. in the ongoing parallel proceedings in the Eastern District of Missouri, the Eastern District of Washington, and the Western District of Tennessee, respectively. Aside from the harm to judicial economy and the obvious increase in resources that these additional proceedings would have caused, seeking confirmation of the same arbitral award in four different tribunals would entail risking inconsistent judgments in the same operative cause of action. Indeed, another one of the ClearTalk entities, NTCH-West Tenn., has already moved to vacate the arbitration award in its ongoing case now pending in the Western District of Tennessee. See NTCH-West Tenn., Inc. v. ZTE USA, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-01169, DE 134, 2014 WL 4444037 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 9, 2014). While vacatur of the award as to only one party might not create a problem if the award actually was divisible, this award was the result of a unified, consolidated arbitration in which the arbitrator did not draw different conclusions as to the various ClearTalk entities. By similarly streamlining the confirmation process, the district court undoubtedly saved, substantial judicial resources and avoided potentially conflicting judgments.

In sum, the district court had diversity jurisdiction over this case upon its removal from state court. It had the power to compel arbitration, and with that power came the power to confirm the resulting arbitration award. Jurisdiction was unaffected by PTA-FLA’s voluntary dismissal, because a motion to confirm is a collateral proceeding over which the court could properly exercise independent jurisdiction. Finally, the district. court properly exercised supplemental jurisdiction because the case falls squarely within the ambit of § 1367(a). The district court’s exercise of subject matter and supplemental jurisdiction and its confirmation of the arbitration award are AFFIRMED.

      . PTA-FLA filed a separate suit against the parent company, ZTE Corp., in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida over a year later. That suit was dismissed without prejudice as a result of the proceedings in this case, See PTA-FLA, Inc. v. ZTE Corp., No. 3:12-cv-01003 (M.D. Fla. filed Sept. 11, 2012).

      . In chronological order, they are: PTA-FLA, Inc. v. ZTE USA, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-00510, 2011 WL 7936633 (M.D. Fla. filed May 20, 2011) (this case); Daredevil, Inc. v. ZTE USA, Inc., No. 4:11-cv-01054, 2011 WL 2473083 (E.D. JV filed June 10, 2011); NTCH-West Tenn., Inc. v. ZTE USA, Inc., No. 1.11-cv-01169, 2011 WI, 13047376 (W.D. Tenn. filed June 13, 2011); PTA-FLA, Inc. v. ZTE USA, Inc., No. 3.11-CV-01605 (D.S.C. filed July 1, 2011); Steinmann v. ZTE USA Inc., et al. No. 5:11-cv-0157C (C.D. Cal. filed Oct. 3, 2011); Daredevil, Inc. v. ZTE Corp., No. 4:12-cv-01166, 2012 WL 2839539 (E.D. Mo. filed June 28, 2012); NTCH-West Tenn., Inc. v. ZTE Corp., No. 1:12-cv-01172, 2012 WL 3527838 (W.D. Tenn. filed Aug. 2, 2012); NTCH-WA, Inc. v. ZTE Corp., No. 2:12-cv-03110, 2012 WL 3853998 (E.D. Wa, filed Aug. 24, 2012); PTA-FLA, Inc. v. ZTE Corp., No. 3:12-cv-01003 (M.D. Fla. filed Sept. 11, 2012); PTA-FLA, Inc. v. ZTE Corp., No, 3:12-cv-02616, 2012 WL 4462838 (D.S.C. filed Sept. 12, 2012).

      . Steinmann was also joined as a party, but a subsequent order denied the motion to confirm as to Steinmann because he was the only party who had been permitted to bring claims against ZTE Corp. in the arbitration. The court allowed him to pursue a separate action in California. In that proceeding, ZTE USA and ZTE Corp. moved to confian the arbitration award and Steinmann m&ved to vacate the award, but the district cóurt stayed the proceedings pending the pjsolution of- this appeal. See Steinmann v. ZTE Corp., No. 5:11-cv-1578, D.E. 88 (C.D. Cal. June 9, 2014).

      . In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), this Court adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981.

      . See, e.g., Allstate Interiors & Exteriors, Inc. v. Stonestreet Constr., LLC, 730 F.3d 67, 73 (1st Cir. 2013) (" ‘[P]laintiff in section 1367(b) refers to the original plaintiff in the action, and’not to a defendant that also is a third-party plaintiff.’’); Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. Kearney, 212 F.3d 721, 726-27 (2d Cir. 2000) ("Significantly, § 1367(b) reflects Congresses] intent to prevent original plaintiffs—but not defendants or third parties—from circumventing the requirements of diversity.”); Development Finance Corp. v. Alpha Housing & Health Care, Inc., 54 F.3d 156, 160 (3d Cir. 1995) ("The plain language of § 1367(b) limits supplemental jurisdiction over claims of plaintiffs ... and of parties who join or intervene as plaintiffs.... The section has little to say about defendants,”); United Capitol Ins. Co. v. Kapiloff, 155 F.3d 488, 492 (4th Cir. 1998) (”[T]he limitation of § 1367(b) applies only to plaintiffs' efforts to join nondiverse parties.”); State Nat'l Ins. Co. Inc. v. Yates, 391 F.3d 577, 580 (5th Cir. 2004) (" ‘[Plaintiff in § 1367(b) refers to the original plaintiff in the action—not to a defendant that happens also to be a counter-plaintiff, cross-plaintiff, dr third-party-plaintiff.”); Grimes v. Mazda North American Operations, 355 F.3d 566, 572 (6th Cir, 2004) ("The supplemental jurisdiction provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b), states congressional intent to prevent original plaintiffs—but not defendants or third parties—from circumventing the requirements of diversity.").

      . See Aurora Loan Servs., Inc. v. Craddieth, 442 F.3d 1018, 1025 (7th Cir. 2006) (citing State Nat'l Ins. Co. and Viacom); Price v. Wolford, 608 F.3d 698, 703-04 (10th Cir. 2010) (citing Development Finance Corp. and Wright & Miller § 3567.2).

      . That case, along with NTCH-West Tenn.’s suit against ZTE Corp., was stayed pending the resolution of this appeal.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: JORDAN, Circuit Judge:

license: Public Domain

text:
    Barbara WORTLEY, Richard I. Clark, Liberty Associates, LC, Liberty Properties at Trafford, LLC, Advanced Vehicle Systems, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Michael R. BAKST, George Steven Fender, Defendants-Appellees.
    Nos. 15-11923 & 15-90007
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Filed: 01/05/2017

      Douglas C. Broeker, Sweetapple Broeker & Varkas, PL, Miami, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants Barbara Wortley, Liberty Properties at Trafford, LLC, and Advanced Vehicle Systems, LLC.
    Douglas C. Broeker, Sweetapple Broeker & Varkas, PL, Miami, FL, Robert A. Sweetapple, Sweetapple Broeker & Var-kas, PA, Boca Raton, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants Richard I. Clark and Liberty Associates, LC.
    Paul Steven Singerman, Berger Singer-.man, LLP, Miami, FL, Paul A. Avron, Berger Singerman, LLP, Boca Raton, FL, Rilyn A. Carnahan, Greenspoon Marder, PA, West Palm Beach, FL, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before MARCUS, JORDAN, and WALKER, Circuit. Judges.

       The Honorable John M. Walker, United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.

   JORDAN, Circuit Judge:

Trafford Distributing Center provided warehousing and fulfillment services in Pennsylvania before it became insolvent in 2008. Trafford’s president and sole, shareholder, Barbara Wortley, filed a Chapter 7 petition for bankruptcy on Trafford’s behalf in the Southern District of Florida, and the case was assigned to Bankruptcy Judge John Olson.

Judge Olson appointed a trustee, who' in turn hired attorney Michael Bakst to pursue three adversary cases on behalf of the Trafford bankruptcy estate against Mrs. Wortley and other related individuals and entities (whom we refer to as “the Wortley parties”). In August of 2009, while Mr. Bakst was litigating the Trafford adversary cases, his law firm, Ruden McClosky, hired Judge Olson’s- fiancé, Steven Fender, to join its bankruptcy group. In connection with his new job, Mr. Fender relocated from Orlando to South Florida, where Judge Olson lived and worked. Five months later, the Trafford adversary cases were tried together at a bench trial before Judge Olson. The proceedings ended badly for the Wortley parties—Judge Olson ordered them to pay over $2.5 million to Trafford’s bankruptcy estate.

In April of 2011, the Wortley parties sued Mr. Bakst and Mr. Fender in state court, alleging that Mr. Bakst, the head of Ruden McClosky’s bankruptcy group, hired Mr. Fender as part of a scheme to improperly influence Judge Olson and secure favorable rulings for the trustee in the Trafford bankruptcy proceedings. The state court action was removed to federal bankruptcy court, where it was dismissed by - Bankruptcy Judge A. Jay Cristol on four independent grounds. Judge Cristol certified his decision for direct appeal to this Court, and we accepted the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2)(A).

As we explain, we do not have appellate jurisdiction to consider the merits of the Wortley parties’ appeal. The bankruptcy court had only “related to” jurisdiction over the claims asserted against Mr, Bakst and Mr. Fender by the Wortley parties, and as a result it did not have authority to enter-a final order of dismissal. We must therefore construe the bankruptcy court’s dismissal order as a report with proposed conclusions of law, a document which, in and of itself, carries no adjudicative authority, And that creates the jurisdictional problem because § 158(d)(2)(A), under which this appeal was certified, only allows us to consider “judgments], order[s], or decree[s]”—rulings which have adjudicative consequences—of the bankruptcy court.

I

In August of 2010, after learning that Mr, Fender had been hired by Ruden McGlosky, the Wortley parties moved for Judge Olson’s recusal on two grounds. First, they argued that the situation created the appearance of impropriety under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Second, they claimed that Judge Olson was disqualified from presiding over the Trafford bankruptcy proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b) because Mr. Fender had an actual interest in the outcome. Judge Olson denied the recusal motion, concluding that § 455(a) did not apply and that recusal was not mandated under § 455(b). The Wortley parties submitted a second motion for Judge Olson’s recusal in September of 2010, and then filed an appeal of the denial of their first recusal motion in the district court. In October of 2010, the district court held a status conference, during which it expressed concern over a potential appearance of impropriety and suggested that the proper course of action would be for Judge Olson to recuse himself. A few days later, Judge Olson recused himself sua sponte, and the case was assigned to Judge Cristol.

The Wortley parties then asked Judge Cristol to vacate Judge Olson’s prior rulings and orders and moved for sanctions against Mr. Bakst and the bankruptcy trustee. Judge Cristol denied the motion to vacate, reasoning that any remedy should be sought on appeal. The Wortley parties moved for reconsideration, but that motion and the motion for sanctions remain pending before Judge Cristol. .

In the meantime, as noted, the Wortley parties filed this separate action against Mr. Bakst and Mr. Fender in state court. They alleged that, after learning from Judge Olson that he hoped Mr. Fender would secure employment in South Florida so the two could live together, Ruden McClosky hired Mr. Fender to work for the-firm’s bankruptcy group in exchange for favorable rulings from Judge Olson in the Trafford adversary cases, including a substantial and unjustified award of attorneys’ fees. Based on these allegations, the complaint asserted two state-law claims: Count I alleged a conspiracy to obstruct the due operation of law and deprive the plaintiffs of them right to a fair trial; and Count II alleged the fraudulent corruption of the judicial process. The Wortley parties sought compensatory damages, including the attorneys’ fees and costs associated with litigating Judge Olson’s alleged bias in federal court.

Mr. Bakst and Mr. Fender removed the state court action to the bankruptcy court, and then moved to dismiss the complaint. Judge Cristol granted the motion to dismiss on four independent grounds: (1) the complaint had been filed in state court without leave of the bankruptcy court in violation of the doctrine established in Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126, 14 Otto 126, 26 L.Ed. 672 (1881); (2) Mr. Bakst and Mr. Fender were entitled to quasi-judicial immunity; (3) Mr. Bakst and Mr. Fender were immune from suit under Florida’s litigation privilege; and (4) the complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

Judge Cristol granted the Wortley parties’ request to certify a direct appeal of the dismissal order, and we accepted the appeal under § 158(d)(2)(A). Our review of the dismissal of the complaint is plenary. See, e.g., In re Failla, 838 F.3d 1170, 1174 (11th Cir. 2016) (explaining that bankruptcy court’s legal conclusions are reviewed de novo).

II

Before we can reach the merits of the appeal, we must address our jurisdiction even though the parties have not questioned it. See United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 628, 122 S.Ct. 2450, 153 L.Ed.2d 586 (2002) (“[A] federal court always has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction.”); Rinaldo v. Corbett, 256 F.3d 1276, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001) (reviewing appellate jurisdiction s^ta sponte). Our appellate jurisdiction derives from § 158(d)(2)(A), so we begin with its text. See generally Huff v. United States, 192 F.2d 911, 913 (5th Cir. 1951) (explaining that appellate jurisdiction “is purely statutory”).

In full, § 158(d)(2)(A) reads as follows: The appropriate court of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals described in the first sentence of subsection (a) if the bankruptcy court, the district court, or the bankruptcy appellate panel involved, acting on its own motion or on the request of a party to the judgment, order, or decree described in such first sentence, or all the appellants and appellees (if any) acting jointly, certify that—
(i) the judgment, order, or decree involves a question of law as to which there is no controlling decision of the court of appeals for the circuit or of the Supreme Court of the United States, or involves a matter of public importance;
(ii) the judgment, order, or decree involves a question of law requiring resolution of conflicting decisions; or
(iii) an immediate appeal from the judgment, order, or decree may materially advance the progress of the ease or proceeding in which the appeal is taken; and if the court of appeals authorizes the direct appeal of the judgment, order, or decree.

The “first sentence of subsection (a)” of § 158 grants jurisdiction to the district courts to hear bankruptcy appeals:

(1) from final judgments, orders, and decrees;
(2) from interlocutory orders and decrees issued under section 1121(d) of [T]itle 11 increasing or reducing the time periods referred to in section 1121 of such [T]itle; and
(3) with leave of the court, from other interlocutory orders and decrees;
and, with leave of the court, from interlocutory orders and decrees, of bankruptcy judges entered in cases and proceedings referred to the bankruptcy judges under section 157 of this [Tjitle.

§ 158(a). And so, § 158(d)(2)(A) gives us jurisdiction to hear certified, direct appeals from “final judgments, orders, and decrees,” as well as certain “interlocutory orders and decrees.”

Regardless of whether they are “final” or “interlocutory,” our appellate jurisdiction under § 158(d)(2)(A) is limited to judgments, orders, and decrees. We must therefore determine whether the bankruptcy court had the authority to enter the order of dismissal that it certified.for direct appeal. The answer to that question depends on whether the action filed by the Wortley parties constituted a core proceeding under bankruptcy law. If the bankruptcy court could not issue a final order of dismissal, we must then address whether that lack of authority affects our appellate jurisdiction.

Ill

The basic tenets of bankruptcy court jurisdiction are straightforward. Bankruptcy courts may hear two types of proceedings in connection with the administration of a bankruptcy estate: core proceedings and non-core proceedings. If a matter is a core proceeding (i.e., the sort of case that arises only in the bankruptcy context or involves rights created by federal bankruptcy law), then the bankruptcy court can enter final judgment absent consent by the parties. If a matter is a non-core proceeding (i.e., a related case, like a tort or contract dispute, that could potentially affect the bankruptcy estate), then the bankruptcy court can entertain the dispute but generally cannot enter final judgment. And if a case does not fit in either category, the bankruptcy court cannot hear the case at all. These relatively simple jurisdictional principles become a bit more complicated when applied to the unusual allegations here.

A

The bankruptcy jurisdiction of the district courts extends to “all civil proceedings arising under [Tjitle 11 [of the U.S. Code], or arising in or related to cases under [Tjitle 11.” 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). Subject to constitutional limitations, the bankruptcy courts, in turn, exercise the powers delegated to them by the district courts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157. Under § 157, a bankruptcy court’s authority'to enter a final order or judgment depends on whether a case is categorized as a core proceeding or non-core proceeding. See § 157(b)-(c). Bankruptcy courts have authority to enter final orders and judgments in “core proceedings arising under [Tjitle 11, or arising in a case under [Tjitle 11.” § 157(b)(1). Bankruptcy courts may also hear non-core proceedings that are “otherwise related to a case under [Tjitle 11,” but they may not enter final orders in these related non-core cases unless all parties consent. See § 157(c)(1). See also Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1932, 1941-42, 191 L.Ed.2d 911 (2015) (holding that, under Article III, litigants may validly consent to adjudication by bankruptcy courts over claims governed by Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462, 503, 131 S.Ct. 2594, 180 L.Ed.2d 475 (2011)—i.e., “claim[sj designated for final adjudication in the bankruptcy court as a statutory matter, but prohibited from proceeding in that way as a constitutional matter”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). If the parties in a non-core proceeding do not consent to the bankruptcy court’s exercise of final adjudicatory authority, the bankruptcy court must prepare proposed findings of fact and/or conclusions of law for the district court to review de novo. See § 157(c)(1).

Core proceedings are narrow in scope, and include only those cases that implicate the property of the bankruptcy estate and either invoke substantive rights created by federal bankruptcy law or that exist exclusively in the bankruptcy context. See Cont’l Natl. Bank v. Sanchez (In re Toledo), 170 F.3d 1340, 1347-48 (11th Cir. 1999). But related non-core proceedings can be quite broad, encompassing matters that “could conceivably have an effect on the estate being administered in bankruptcy” even if they are not proceedings “against the debtor or against the debtor’s property.” Miller v. Kemira, Inc. (In re Lemco Gypsum, Inc.), 910 F.2d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting Pacor, Inc. v. Higgins, 743 F.2d 984, 994 (3d Cir. 1984), overruled on other grounds by Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 124-25, 116 S.Ct. 494, 133 L.Ed.2d 461 (1995)). “An action is related to bankruptcy if the outcome could alter the debtor’s rights, liabilities, options, or freedom of action (either positively or negatively) and which in any way- impacts upon the handling, and administration of the bankrupt estate.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

The Wortley parties contend that the bankruptcy court lacked the authority to dismiss their state-law claims. First, they argue that their action is not a “core pro-: ceeding” because it does not invoke substantive rights created by federal bankruptcy law and could exist outside of bankruptcy. According to the Wortley parties, their complaint merely asserts standalone tort claims under state law and does not allege violations of federal bankruptcy law. See Br. of Appellants at 27. Second, they contend that the action is not a related “non-core proceeding” because it was brought against Mr. Bakst and Mr. Fender in their individual capacities for conduct that occurred outside the scope of Mr. Bakst’s official representation of the trustee, and because a favorable judgment would not affect Trafford’s bankruptcy estate or its administration (in other words, it would not affect the amount of funds available for distribution or the way that money is allocated to Trafford’s creditors). That is because a judgment in favor of the Wortley parties would require Mr. Bakst and Mr, Fender to pay damages out of their own pockets, and not with bankruptcy estate resources. See Reply Br. of Appellants at 3-4.

Mr. Bakst and Mr. Fender respond that this matter would have no existence outside of the Trafford bankruptcy proceedings. The complaint filed by the Wortley parties, they note, alleges a conspiracy the purpose of which was to influence the outcome of the adversary proceedings in the bankruptcy court and to reward Mr. Bakst for his alleged assistance to Mr. Fender and Judge Olson through substantial and unjustified attorneys’ fees for work purportedly done on behalf of Trafford’s bankruptcy estate. Mr. Bakst and Mr. Fender reason that, if the alleged conspiracy actually existed, then the judgments against the Wortley parties in the Trafford adversary cases and the attorneys’ fees awarded to the trustee would have to be vacated, which would definitely—and not just conceivably—-affect the administration of the bankruptcy estate. See Br. of Appellees at 25.

B

Core proceedings, as noted, are those that “involve [] a right created by the federal bankruptcy law” or that “would arise only in bankruptcy,” such as “the filing of a proof of claim or an objection to the discharge of a particular debt.” In re Toledo, 170 F.3d at 1348 (quoting Wood v. Wood (In re Wood), 825 F.2d 90, 97 (5th Cir. 1987)). In determining whether an action constitutes a core proceeding, the question is “whether [it] stems from the bankruptcy itself or would necessarily be resolved in the claims allowance process.” In re Fisher Island Invs., Inc., 778 F.3d 1172, 1190 (11th Cir. 2015) . (quoting Stern, 564 U.S. at 499, 131 S.Ct 2594). If so, bankruptcy courts have full and final adjudicatory authority.

This case does not fit the bill. Although the action filed by the Wortley parties stems from a bankruptcy in a literal sense (because the alleged scheme purportedly took place during the Trafford bankruptcy proceedings), it is not the sort of case that would arise only in bankruptcy because the corruption or improper conduct of a judge can occur in any type of legal proceeding. Cf., e.g., United States v. Shenberg, 89 F.3d 1461, 1465-68 (11th Cir. 1996) (detailing extensive judicial corruption in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida). This case also does not involve any rights created by federal bankruptcy law. The complaint only asserts state-law tort claims, which are not created by the Bankruptcy Code and are not particular to federal bankruptcy law. See, e.g., Waldman v. Stone, 698 F.3d 910, 922 (6th Cir. 2012) (holding that “ordinary state-law claims for fraud” against creditor were not core proceedings); Howell Hydrocarbons, Inc. v. Adams, 897 F.2d 183, 190 (5th Cir. 1990) (concluding that fraud-based federal RICO claims against the officers of the debtor-corporation did not constitute core proceedings); In re O’Brien, 414 B.R. 92, 98-99 (S.D. W. Va. 2009) (ruling that claims for fraud, civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting wrongful acts, tortious interference with contract, and negligence asserted by cattleman against bank, bank president, and member of bank’s board of directors for their alleged involvement in the debtor’s fraudulent scheme were “non-core” proceedings).

C

Having concluded that the action filed by the Wortley parties is not a core proceeding under § 157(b)(1), we consider whether it is nevertheless “related to” Trafford’s bankruptcy proceedings, such that jurisdiction was proper under § 157(c)(1). To determine whether a case is a related non-core proceeding, we ask whether the potential outcome of the dispute—in this case, a judgment against Mr. Bakst and Mr. Fender for conspiring to bribe Judge Olson and an award compensating the Wortley parties for, among other things, the attorneys’ fees incurred to litigate Judge Olson’s alleged bias—would “conceivably have an effect” on the bankruptcy estate. See Lemco Gypsum, 910 F.2d at 788.

At oral argument, counsel for the Wortley parties asserted that, for an action to be considered even a non-core proceeding, a case must have a “legal” effect on the estate, meaning a res judicata (claim preclusion) or collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) effect. But the “conceivable effect” test under Lemco Gypsum is much broader than that. The non-core category encompasses cases that “could conceivably have an effect on the estate being administered in bankruptcy” and includes any action “which in any way impacts upon the handling and administration of the bankrupt estate.” Id. (emphasis added).

In their complaint, the Wortley parties allege that corruption affected the handling and result of the Trafford adversary cases. The allegations challenge the legitimacy of the bankruptcy court proceedings, and a favorable outcome for the Wortley parties in their tort suit would call into question (or at least conceivably call into question) Judge Olson’s rulings, orders, and judgments in the Trafford adversary cases. To conclude that this case is related to the Trafford bankruptcy proceedings, we need not resolve what preclusive effect (if any) a parallel tort judgment would have. It is conceivable, and therefore sufficient, that a. judgment in favor of the Wortley parties on their tort claims would affect Judge Cristol’s rulings on the still-pending post-judgment motions in the Trafford adversary cases. Those motions involve (and are based on) many of the same allegations pled in this action, and the outcome of those motions could possibly affect the handling and administration of the Trafford bankruptcy estate. We therefore conclude that the Wortley parties’ tort action against Mr. Bakst and Mr. Fender is a non-core proceeding related to the Trafford bankruptcy case.

IV

In a related non-core proceeding like this one, a bankruptcy court cannot enter a final order without the parties’ consent. See Wellness Int’l Network, 135 S.Ct. at 1940 (describing how, under § 157, a bankruptcy court may not enter orders or judgments in non-core proceedings unless all parties consent). The parties here did not consent, meaning that the bankruptcy court lacked authority to enter the final order of dismissal and instead should have submitted proposed conclusions of law to the district court under § 157(c)(1). As a result, we must decide whether § 158(d)(2)(A) provides us with appellate jurisdiction to review the bankruptcy court’s unauthorized order of dismissal.

Orders that should have been submitted as reports containing proposed findings of fact and/or conclusions of law ordinarily do not present a problem for appellate review because bankruptcy court orders are usually first appealed to the district court. See § 157(b)(1) (“Bankruptcy judges ... may enter appropriate orders and judgments, subject to review under [§ ] 158.... ”); § 158(a) (granting district- courts appellate jurisdiction in bankruptcy cases). And a district court may treat an unauthorized order as a report with proposed findings of fact and/or conclusions of law under § 157(c)(1), thereby exercising de novo review before entering judgment. See, e.g., N.Y. Skyline, Inc. v. Empire State Bldg. Co., 542 B.R. 321, 324 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (treating bankruptcy. court order as proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and citing local rules allowing such treatment). The district court’s final judgment eventually makes its way to a circuit court by way of an appeal under § 158(d)(1).

Appellate jurisdiction under § 158(d)(2)(A), however, is limited to certified “judgment[s], order[s], or decree[s]” of both “final” and “interlocutory” varieties. The question, then, is whether a report with proposed conclusions of law constitutes a judgment, order, or decree.

Though this is an issue of first impression for us, the Seventh Circuit has already addressed whether circuit courts have jurisdiction under § 158(d)(2)(A) to hear a direct appeal from the bankruptcy court of an unauthorized order that has not been initially reviewed by the district court. In the underlying-proceedings of In re Ortiz, 665 F.3d 906, 910 (7th Cir. 2011), the bankruptcy court dismissed certain claims, and the parties moved for and received certification for a direct appeal under § 158(d)(2). Without-much explanation, the Seventh Circuit held that an unauthorized order from the bankruptcy court dismissing a complaint is not a final or interlocutory judgment, order, or decree under § 158(d)(2)(A). See id. at 915. As a result, circuit appellate jurisdiction did not exist. See id. See also Wellness Int'l Network Ltd. v. Sharif, 727 F.3d 751, 777 (7th Cir. 2013) (explaining that Ortiz—“due to the unique posture of that appeal, namely, [that] we had permitted the parties to bypass the district court and bring a direct appeal from bankruptcy court”—held that “the bankruptcy court’s lack of [ ] authority to enter final judgment on the debtors’ claims deprived us of appellate jurisdiction”), rev’d on other grounds, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1932, 191 L.Ed.2d 911 (2015).

A plain reading of the words “judgment, order, or decree” in § 158(d)(2)(A) supports the Seventh Circuit’s holding in Ortiz. See United States v. Steele, 147 F.3d 1316, 1318 (11th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (noting that statutory construction begins “with the language of the statute itself’). In the legal sense, these three words share, as their common denominator, the notion of a decision carrying some kind of command or adjudicative consequence. See Black’s Law Dictionary 497, 970, 1270 (10th ed. 2014); 1 Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 619, 1466 (5th ed. 2002); 2 Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 2016 (5th ed. 2002). Proposed findings of fact and/or conclusions of law are a creature of § 157, though, and do not, in and of themselves, constitute a judicial decision with legal effect. As we have explained, § 157 makes it clear that bankruptcy courts’ ability to fully “hear and determine” cases does not extend to non-core proceedings. See § 157(a), (c)(1). Absent consent, in such proceedings only the district court is vested with adjudicatory authority. See § 157(c)(1). Thus, we hold that the phrase “judgment[s], order[s], or deeree[s]” in § 158(d)(2)(A) does not include nonbinding, proposed findings of fact and/or conclusions of law.

We. agree with the Seventh Circuit that § 158(d)(2)(A) does not give us jurisdiction to consider, on a direct certified appeal, the merits of an unauthorized bankruptcy court order entered without consent in a related non-core proceeding unless it has first been reviewed by the district court as a report with proposed findings of fact and/or conclusions of law under § 157(c)(1). We therefore cannot proceed to the merits.

Y

The bankruptcy court had authority to entertain the action filed by the Wortley parties pursuant to its “related to” non-core jurisdiction. It did not, however, have statutory authority—absent consent—to enter a dismissal order in this non-core proceeding. The bankruptcy court should have submitted a report- with proposed conclusions of law recommending dismissal of the complaint to the district court. Because the case should have gone there first, we transfer the unauthorized order to the district court for review as a report with proposed conclusions of law under § 157(c)(1). See 28 U.S.C. § 1631. See also In re Gen. Coffee Corp., 758 F.2d 1406, 1409 (11th Cir. 1985) (transferring direct bankruptcy court appeal to district .court for want of appellate jurisdiction).

BANKRUPTCY COURT’S ORDER MODIFIED AND TRANSFERRED TO THE DISTRICT COURT.

      . We do not express any views as to the allegations in the Wortley parties’ complaint.

      . Because we conclude that the bankruptcy court lacked statutory core jurisdiction, we need not address whether a statute providing bankruptcy courts final adjudicative authority over the state-law claims in this case would run afoul of Article III under Stem.