Slip Opinions Home
Page | Keyword | Case | Docket | Date: Filed / Added |    Download WordPerfect version (11317 bytes)     Download RTF version (6229 bytes)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT




FOUR ACES MOBILE HOME ESTATES; SAFETY INVESTMENT CORPORATION; STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

HOLLI LUNDAHL,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 98-4075

(District of Utah)

(D.C. No. 97-CV-993)


ORDER AND JUDGMENT(*)


Before TACHA, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.


After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Holli Lundahl appeals the district court's dismissal of Lundahl's Notice of Removal and Motion to Consolidate. Finding Lundahl's appeal utterly without merit, this court affirms.

Lundahl sought to remove to the United States District Court for the District of Utah, several actions arising in California state court. After extensive review of Lundahl's removal notice, the district court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the removed actions. The district court went on to note that although lack of subject matter jurisdiction would normally mandate a remand of the action to state court, such a remand would be inappropriate here because the actions removed were no longer pending in any California court. Accordingly, the district court dismissed the action in its entirety.

Upon review of the Lundahl's briefs and contentions, the district court's Orders, and the entire record on appeal, this court AFFIRMS, for substantially those reasons set out in the district court's Orders dated March 24, 1998, and April 15, 1998. Lundahl's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Appendix is DENIED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT:

Michael R. Murphy

Circuit Judge


FOOTNOTES
Click footnote number to return to corresponding location in the text.

*. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.


Slip Opinions Home
Page | Keyword | Case | Docket | Date: Filed / Added |    Download WordPerfect version (11317 bytes)     Download RTF version (6229 bytes)
Comments to: WebMaster, ca10 [at] washburnlaw.edu.
Updated: December 17, 1998.
HTML markup © 1998, Washburn University School of Law.
URL: http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/1998/12/98-4075.htm.