With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". its dischargeability once such claim is liquidated.”); Pas-sialis, 292 B.R. at 351 (“The Court has no jurisdiction to determine the slander claim underlying Rizzo’s dischargeability complaint.”); Von Volkmar, 218 B.R. at 892 (“[T]he Court lacks subj urt’s rulings on the discovery matters, from which appellants appeal, are null and void, because the bankruptcy court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the adversary proceeding.”). III. CONCLUSION This Court does not have jurisdiction to decide the Plaintiffs’ defamation claims, but the Court does have jurisdiction to decide the unfair trade practice and non-dischargeability claims. The Plaintiffs may elect to dismiss their defamation claims and try their unfair trade practice and nondischargeability , 164 (Bankr.D.Conn.2002) (<HOLDING>); Leathern v. Von Volkmar (In re Von Volkmar),

A: holding that sexual harassment is a personal injury tort
B: holding that a negligence claim is not a personal injury tort claim
C: holding that age discrimination is not a personal injury tort
D: holding that racial discrimination is not a personal injury tort
A.