Parmenter v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC

Filing 7

Order: Because appellant improperly removed this action, the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction. Judge Alleys order remanding the case is affirmed. Signed on 5/21/2018 by Judge Michael J. McShane. Associated Cases: 6:17-cv-01742-MC, 6:17-cv-01743-MC, 6:17-cv-01997-MC (cp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
BARBARA K. PARMENTOR,
Appellant,

Civ. No. 6:17-cv-01742-MC
(lead case)
Civ. No. 6:17-cv-01743-MC
Civ. No. 6:17-cv-01997-MC

v.

ORDER

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC,
Appellee,
_____________________________

MCSHANE, Judge:
Appellant, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal from an order remanding a
bankruptcy proceeding to state court. ECF No. 1. Appellant states she “challenged the
Jurisdiction of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon.” ECF No. 1 ¶ 2.
The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit transferred the appeal to this court.
ECF No. 2. The bankruptcy order for remand noted that appellant removed the case but, because
she did not file a notice of removal with the Circuit Court, the bankruptcy court lacked
jurisdiction over the case and therefore remanded the action to state court. ECF No 2-2 at 1-2.
As I noted in my earlier order to show cause, all three cases challenge Judge Alley’s
order remanding the cases to state court. I noted that:
while the record contains appellant’s 50 plus page briefing on a variety of
constitutional matters, the court is unable to find any argument related to the
appeal at issue, which is the appeal from Judge Alley’s order remanding the cases
1 – Order

to state court. Appellant is granted 14 days leave to file a motion stating the legal
arguments in support of her challenge to the bankruptcy court’s orders remanding
her cases to state court. Additionally, appellant shall pay the filing fee or move for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Failure to comply with this order may result
in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
March 27, 2018 Order; CMECF # .
Appellant filed a motion outlining her alleged disabilities. Absent from appellant’s
motion is any argument demonstrating how Judge Alley erred in remanding the cases. During a
hearing, Judge Alley ruled from the bench, concluding “The court specifically finds that a
removal notice was filed in this court, but no notice of removal has been filed with the Circuit
Court. As a result, this court has not acquired jurisdiction over the case, except to the extent
necessary to remand it. The court further finds that it should abstain from further action in this
matter.” Order for Remand, 1. Under the removal statute, the filing of the notice of removal with
the state court “shall effect the removal[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d). “If a case is improperly
removed, the federal court must remand the action because it has no subject-matter jurisdiction
to decide the case.” Dennis v. Hart, 724 F.3d 1249, 1252 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting ARCO Envtl.
Remediation, L.L.C. v. Dep’t of Health and Envtl. Quality of Mont., 213 F.3d 1108, 1113) (9th
Cir. 2000)). Because appeallant improperly removed this action, the bankruptcy court lacked
jurisdiction. Judge Alley’s order remanding the case is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 21st day of May, 2018.

/s/Michael McShane
Michael McShane
United States District Judge

2 – Order