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).

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