Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-19-04066/USCOURTS-ca6-19-04066-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 

---

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)

File Name: 20a0037p.06

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

GREG T. ACKERMAN; JOYCE ACKERMAN,

Defendants-Appellants.

┐

│

│

│

│

│

│

│

┘

No. 19-4066

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Ohio at Dayton.

No. 3:19-cv-00053—Thomas M. Rose, District Judge.

Decided and Filed: February 6, 2020

Before: COOK and THAPAR, Circuit Judges; HOOD, District Judge.*

_________________

OPINION

_________________

PER CURIAM. More than a decade ago, the Bank of New York began foreclosure 

proceedings against Greg and Joyce Ackerman. In 2010, an Ohio court entered judgment in the 

Bank’s favor. Yet since that time, the Ackermans have sought to thwart the foreclosure sale.

Early last year, the Ackermans tried to remove their case to federal court. But the district 

court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction and thus remanded their case back to state court. The 

Ackermans appealed. Our court dismissed their appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1447(d); Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Ackerman, No. 19-3379, 2019 WL 3335006, at *1 (6th Cir. 

June 21, 2019).

*The Honorable Joseph M. Hood, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting 

by designation.

>

 Case: 19-4066 Document: 18-2 Filed: 02/06/2020 Page: 1
No. 19-4066 Bank of New York Mellon v. Ackerman Page 2

Later, the Ackermans moved the district court to reconsider its remand order. But the 

district court denied their motion, reasoning that it lacked jurisdiction to reconsider its order. 

Again, the Ackermans appeal. And again, we dismiss their appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Other circuits have construed § 1447(d) as precluding further reconsideration or review 

of a district court’s order remanding a case back to state court. See Brierly v. Alusuisse Flexible 

Packaging, Inc., 184 F.3d 527, 531 & n.1 (6th Cir. 1999) (collecting cases). These decisions 

have reasoned that a remand divests the district court of any further jurisdiction over the case. 

See, e.g., In re La Providencia Dev. Corp., 406 F.2d 251, 253 (1st Cir. 1969) (“The district court 

has one shot, right or wrong.”). Our circuit has yet to squarely resolve the issue, but the case law 

strongly suggests that the district court correctly held that it lacked jurisdiction. See Gibson v. 

Am. Mining Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 08-118-ART, 2008 WL 4858396, at *1 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 7, 

2008) (collecting cases); see also Jackson v. Sloan, 800 F.3d 260, 261 (6th Cir. 2015) (noting the 

ordinary transfer rule that “[j]urisdiction follows the file . . . meaning that the one court loses 

jurisdiction and the other court gains it when a case file physically moves between courts” 

(cleaned up)). 

In any event, our court lacks appellate jurisdiction to review an order denying a motion to 

reconsider a remand order. See Agostini v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 729 F.3d 350, 352–55 (3d Cir. 

2013); cf. Christopher v. Stanley-Bostitch, Inc., 240 F.3d 95, 98–99 (1st Cir. 2001) (per curiam). 

To hold otherwise would “circumvent the jurisdiction-stripping function of § 1447(d).” Agostini, 

729 F.3d at 352. While § 1447(d) carves out two exceptions to its general rule (for removal 

under § 1442 or § 1443), those exceptions have no bearing here. And because we lack appellate 

jurisdiction, we dismiss the Ackermans’ various other motions for relief. See, e.g., In re 

Champion, 895 F.2d 490, 492 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam); Emp’rs Ins. of Wausau v. Shell Oil 

Co., 820 F.2d 898, 899 (7th Cir. 1987).

We dismiss the appeal.

 Case: 19-4066 Document: 18-2 Filed: 02/06/2020 Page: 2