The Court held that the movants have the initial burden of demonstrating an appropriate basis for relief regarding their motion for relief from the automatic stay "for cause" under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1), and that once such burden has been met, the ultimate burden of proof rests upon the debtor to show a lack of cause to grant such motion.  Further, the Court held that, under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5), personal injury tort bankruptcy claims must be tried in the district court rather than in the bankruptcy court, even though such claims, if successful, will be claims against the bankruptcy estate.  The Court also held that personal injury tort claims can involve invasions of personal rights and that such claims are not limited to actual physical injury.  Finally, after considering congressional intent and the factors in Robbins v. Robbins (In re Robbins), 964 F.2d 342 (4th Cir. 1992), the Court granted the movants' motion for relief from the automatic stay to allow the movants to amend their complaint in a dischargeability adversary proceeding to include their underlying claims against debtor, the allegations which support those claims, and the allegations which support the non-dischargeability of such claims, and to seek an order in district court that such adversary proceeding be tried in the district court for the district in which such claims arose.