The Honor able Kimba M. Wood, Senior J udg e of the United States District Court for * the Southern District of Ne w York, sitting by desig nation. The Honor able Rosemar y S. Pool er, or igina lly

a member

of the pa nel, did not ** pa rt ic ipate in c on sid e ratio n o f t his a pp e a l. T he tw o r e ma ini ngme mbe rs of the pa ne l, who are in agree ment, have de termined the matter. See28 U.S.C. § 46(d); 2d Cir. Interna l Operating Pr oc e dure E; United States v. De simone , 140 F.3d 457 ( 2d Cir. 1998). 08-4 423 -cv Th e E sta te of

T h eodor e L ipin et al. v . Joa n C . Lipin 

### UNI TED S TATES COURT OF AP P EALS FO R TH E SEC O N D C IRC U IT SU MM ARY ORDER

RULING S B Y SUM M ARY O RDER D O NO T HAVE PRECEDENTI AL EFFECT. CITATIO N TO A SUM M ARY O RDER FILED ON O R A FTER JANUARY 1, 2 00 7, IS PERM ITTED AN D IS G OVERNED BY FEDERAL R ULE OF APPELLATE PROCED URE 32 .1 AND THIS C OURT’S LO CAL RU LE 32. 1.1 . WHEN CITING A SUMM ARY O RDER I N A D OCUMENT FILED WITH TH IS COURT, A

PARTY MUST CITE EITH E RT HE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTR ONIC DATABASE (WITHTHE NOTATI ON “SUM M ARY O RDER”). A PARTY CI TING A SUM M ARY O RDER M U S T S E RVE A C OP Y OF I T ON ANY PARTY NO T REPRESENTED BY COU NSEL. 1 At a stat ed ter m of the United S tate s Court of App eals for the Second Circuit, 2 he ld a t t he Da nie l P at r ic k M oy niha n Un it e d St at e s C our th ous e , 5 00 P e ar l St r e e t, in 3 th e Ci tyof N e w Yo r k, o n t he 11 dayof M ar c h, two t hous and t e n. th 4 5 PRES ENT: 6 J OSEPH M. McLAUGHL I N, 7 Circuit Judge , 8 KI MBA M. WOOD, * 9 District Judge

. ** 10

___________________________________________________ 11 12 The Estate of Theodor e L ipin, Robert G. L ipin, and Ann Susan 13 Mark atos , 14 Plaintif fs-Appellee

s , 15 v. 08-4423-c v 16 17 J oan C. L ipin, 18 Defendant- Appellant

. 19

____________________________________________________ 20 21 FOR DEF ENDAN T-APPEL LANT: J oan C. L ipin, pro s e , New Y ork, N.Y. 22 23 FOR

P LAI NTI FFS- AP P EL L EES : Dav idA. Ber ger, Al legaertBerger & 24 Vog el L L P, New Yor k, N.Y.Although no se parate judg ment was e ntere d in this m atter, the dismiss al orde r wa s 1 enter ed in J uly

2008. Under

the 2002 amendme nts to Fede ral Rule of Civil Procedure 58 and F e de ra l Ru le of

Ap pe llate Pr oc e dure 4( a )( 7) , if a re qu ir e d s e pa

ra te jud g me nt i s n ot e nte re d, it i s deeme d to have be en ente red 150 da y s after entry of the dispositive order

. 2 1 Appea l from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District 2 of Ne w York ( Pauley , Judge ). 3 ON CONSIDERATION WHE REOF, IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, 4 AD JU DG ED , A ND DE CREED that the judg ment of the district cour t be VA CA TED and 5 the matter RE M AN DE D wi th i ns tr uc tio ns . 6 Appellant Joan C. L ipin, pro s e , appea ls from a judg ment of the district cour t 1 7 “ dis mis sin g ” fo r l a c k o f s ub je c t matte r j ur isd ic tio n th e state c ourt a c tio n s he re mov e d to 8 fede ral c ourt. We assume the pa rties’ fa miliarity with the underly

ing f acts, the pr ocedur al 9 history

of the c ase, a

nd the issues on appe al. 10 As an initial matter, upon conside ration of the a rguments raised the rein, L ipin’s 11 p e n d i n gm o t i o nt o f i l e h e r r e p l y b r i e f

i s h e r e b y G RA NT ED , and her pendingmotion for 12 re c on sid e ratio n o f a Marc h 2 00 9 o rd e r o f t

his Court re g ard ingsu

bp oe na s se rv e d o n L ipi n is 13 h e r e b y DE NI ED , beca use it has no basis in law. 14 Ge ne ra lly , w ithre sp e c t to a re mov e d c a se , “ [i]f at any tim e be fo re fi na l ju dgme nt i t 15 appea

rs that the district cour

t lacks subject matter

jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded ” 16 ba c k to state c ourt . 2 8 U .S. C. § 14 47 (c ) ( e mph a sis a dd e d) . T his Court la c ks jur isd ic tio n to 17 revie w such “ rema nd” orde rs. See id . § 1447(d). How ever , the district court he re 18 “dismissed” the a ction for lac k of subject matter jurisdiction. Accor dingly , we have 19 jurisdiction to review the dismissal, and we revie w district court ruling s on subject matter3 1 jurisdiction de novo. See SE C v. Berge r , 322 F.3d 187, 191 ( 2d Cir. 2003). 2 There is no feder al question jurisdiction over the r emoved a ction. See28 U. S.C. 3 § 1 44 1(b) ; Bene ficial Nat ’l Bank v . Anderson , 539 U.S. 1, 6 (2003). Howe ver, w e ca nnot 4 deter

mine on the pre sent rec ord whe ther diver sity jurisdiction ex ists. See28 U. S.C. 5 §§ 1332 and 1441(b) . Acc ording ly , we VA CA TE the district court’s judgment and 6 REMAND th e m at t er wi thi n s tru ct i o n s fo r th e d i s tri ctco urtt o co n d u ctfu rt h er

p ro ce ed i n gs 7 to determine whether rema nd to state court is appr opriate. See U nited Food &Commercial 8 W

or k e rs U nio n, Loc al 9 19v . Ce nte rM ar k Prop s. , 3 0 F .3 d 2 98 , 3 05 -0 6 ( 2d Cir . 1 99 4) ; see 9 also 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 and 1447(c)

. 10 11 12 FOR THE COURT: 13 Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk 14 15