Citibank, N.A. v. Matthews

Filing 25

NOTICE RE RECENT FILINGS (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/6/2012: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (dt, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 4 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 CITIBANK N.A., 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Plaintiff, v. NOTICE RE RECENT FILINGS (DKT. NOS. 23, 24) DEBORAH A. MATTHEWS, Defendant. / 12 13 No. C 12-03031 WHA On September 17, 2012, an order issued remanding this action to the Superior Court of 14 Alameda County due to lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. On September 18, the Clerk 15 of the Court mailed certified copies of the remand order and docket entries to the Superior Court 16 of Alameda County. 17 The Court has since received several filings from pro se defendant Deborah Matthews 18 (Dkt. Nos. 20, 21, 23, 24). As explained in this Court’s prior notice, once a district court 19 certifies a remand order to state court, the district court is divested of jurisdiction and can take no 20 further action on the case. Seedman v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of California, 837 F.2d 21 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988). “A remand order returns the case to the state courts and the federal 22 court has no power to retrieve it.” Ibid. 23 24 Defendant should proceed in state court to litigate the merits of her case and is requested to discontinue filing papers with this Court. 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 28 Dated: November 6, 2012. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?