Lundahl v. Fireman's Fund Insurance

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 28 2005
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
HOLLI LUNDAHL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 04-4243
(D.C. No. 2:04-CV-87-PGC)
FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE (D. Utah)
COMPANY, also known as Source
One Mortgage Services; FOUR ACES
MOBILE HOME ESTATES; SAFETY
INVESTMENT CORPORATION;
COMMUNITY ASSET
MANAGEMENT; CNA FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, also known as CNA
Insurance, also known as Loes
Corporation; W. RHODES, Riverside
County Sheriff; TOM SLESCH;
MICHAEL SLESCH; RALPH
BETTY; DAVID BOYCE; MICHAEL
MIHELICH; CITIGROUP; MICHAEL
B. FLESCH; ROBERT T. FLESH,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR , KELLY , and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
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(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
In this matter, Ms. Holli Lundahl appeals from the district court’s order
denying her request to withdraw a bankruptcy reference. She also argues that the
district court’s order, which effectively approved the bankruptcy court’s remand
of the underlying adversary proceeding back to state court, was improper.
As an initial proposition, we note, as we did in the Order & Judgment filed
in appeal number 04-4236 this same day, that Ms. Lundahl’s bankruptcy case was
dismissed on December 23, 2003. The bankruptcy court then remanded or
dismissed all related adversary proceedings, including the one underlying this
appeal. That remand order entered on December 29, 2003. The motion to
withdraw the bankruptcy reference was filed on January 13, 2004, some two
weeks after the remand order entered. It was docketed on January 28, 2004.
Although relying on several grounds to reject the motion to withdraw the
reference, the district court initially noted that it was moot in light of the
dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy case. We review that determination de
novo. Faustin v. City & County of Denver , 268 F.3d 942, 947 (10th Cir. 2001).
On this record, it is clear the district court’s determination was correct. As there
-2-
was no longer a bankruptcy matter pending at the time the motion to withdraw the
reference was filed, the issue was moot.
Moreover, we will not consider Ms. Lundahl’s claims that the bankruptcy
court’s remand order was suspect. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b), the remand
order is not reviewable. See Hawking v. Ford Motor Credit Co. , 210 F.3d 540,
550 (5th Cir. 2000); In re United States Brass Corp ., 110 F.3d 1261, 1265-66 (7th
Cir. 1997); In re Cathedral of the Incarnation In the Diocese of Long Island ,
90 F.3d 28, 31-32 (2d Cir. 1996).
As we have noted previously, Ms. Lundahl’s arguments border on specious.
Her description of the record is inaccurate, at best. We warn her that this pattern
of vexatious litigation may warrant the imposition of sanctions or other
restrictions. See Winslow v. Hunter (In re Winslow) , 17 F.3d 314, 315-16 (10th
Cir. 1994).
Ms. Lundahl’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and this
matter is DISMISSED. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Entered for the Court
Stephanie K. Seymour
Circuit Judge
-3-