Order granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Debtor filed an adversary proceeding alleging that Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 by filing a stale Proof of Claim. After the Court dismissed Debtor’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding, Defendant moved to dismiss the adversary proceeding. The Court concluded that it should not retain jurisdiction over the proceedings. When the underlying bankruptcy case was dismissed, the Court had discretion to retain jurisdiction over the adversary proceeding that was a non-core matter, arguably “related to” the bankruptcy proceeding. The Court evaluated the three factors of the Smith test when deciding whether to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction: (1) judicial economy; (2) fairness and convenience to the litigants; (3) the degree of difficulty of the related legal issues involved. In light of the facts that Debtor had not indicated opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, the parties had not engaged in discovery, no interlocutory orders had been entered, and the case had not been set for trial, the Court found the first two factors weighed heavily against retaining jurisdiction and therefore dismissed the case.