Denny Chin, of the United States District Court for the Southern D istrict of NewYork, * sitti ng by desig nation. 08-4071-cv Kenmore Associates, L.P. v. Burke



### 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 ORDER DO NOT HAV E P RECEDENTI AL EFF ECT. CITATIO N TO A SUM M ARY O RDER FILED ON O R AFTER JANUA RY 1, 20 07 , IS PERM ITTED AND IS G OV ERNED BY FEDERAL R ULE OF APPELLATE PROCED URE 32 .1 AND THIS C OURT’S LO CAL RU LE 32. 1.1 . W HEN CITING A SUM M ARY O RDER I N A D OCUMENT FILED W ITH TH IS COURT, A

PARTY MUST CITE EITH ER THE FEDERAL A P P ENDIX OR AN ELECTR ONIC DATABASE (WITHTHE NOTATI O N “S U MMAR Y O RD E R ”) . A PA R T Y C I T I N G A SU MMAR Y O RD E R MU ST SE R V E A C O PY OF IT ON A NY PARTY NO T REPRESENTED BY COU NSEL.

At a stat ed ter m of the United S tate s Court of App eals for the Second Circuit, 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 th e Ci tyof N e w Yo r k, o n t he 17 dayof F e br uar y, two th ous and t e n. th PRES ENT: RO SEM AR Y S. POO L ER, DEB RA ANN L I VI

NGSTON, Cir c uit Judg e s, DENNYCHI

N, * District J udg e.

___________________________________________________ Kenmore Associates, L .P., Housing & Service , Inc., No rr is, Mc L a

ug hli n & Marc us ,

Plaintiffs-Appellee s,

v. 08-4071-c v Br ian B urke, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla nt.

____________________________________________________ FOR APPEL L ANT: Br ian B urke, pr o se, Ne w York, N ew Yor k. FOR APPEL L EES: Dea n M. Roberts, Norris, McL aug hlin & Mar cus, P.A., New York, Ne w York.Whil e no sepa rate judgme nt was ente red in this matter, the dismissal order was e ntere d 1 in J uly 2008 and under

the 2002 amendme nts to Fede ral Rule of Civil Procedure 58 and F eder al Rule of Appellate Procedur e 4(a )(7) , if a re quired sepa rate judgme nt is not entered, it is deeme d to have be en ente red 150 da y s after entry of the dispositive order

. 2 Appea l from a judg ment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ne w York ( Daniels, J.). IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED that the judg ment of the district cour t be RE VE RSE D and the matter RE M AN DE D wi th i ns tr uc tio ns . Appellant B rian B urke, pr o se, appe als from a judgme nt of the district cour t 1 denying his “ attempt to remove” a state c ourt matter to the district cour t and dismissi ng the case . We assume the par ties’ familiarity

with the case

. “[ R ] em o v al i s ef

fe ct edb y th e d ef en d an tt ak i n g th re e p ro ce d ura l s t ep s : fi l i n g a notice of r emoval in the fe dera l court, filing a copy of this notice in the state c ourt, and g ivi ngpr omp t w ri tte n n oti c e to a ll a dv e rs e pa rt ie s. ” 14 Cha

rl e s A . Wr ig ht & Ar

thu r R

. Miller, Fe dera l Practice and Proce dure § 3736 ( 4th ed. 2009) (f ootnote omitted); see 28 U. S.C. § 1 44 6( d) . In th e pr e se nt c a se , it is und isp ute d th a t App e lla nt t oo k e a c h o f t

he se th re e s t ep s , an d

thu s th atth e c as e w as p ro p er l y re m o v edas a p ro ce d

ura l m at t er . Al th o u gh the district court c orre ctly deter mined that it lacked subjec t matter jurisdiction over the c a se , s e e B e ne fi c ia l N a t’ l B ank v. An de rs on , 5 39 U. S. 1 , 6 (2 00 3) , th e c ourt purp or te d to
“ de ny” Ap pe lla

nt’ s “ a tte mpt

to r e mov e thi s matte r, ” rathe r t ha n r e mand the c a se to s tate court. This wa s err or. See 28 U. S.C. § 1 44 7( c ) ( “ I f a t any tim e be fo re fi na l ju dg me nt i t appea rs that the district cour

t lacks subject matter

jurisdiction, the case shall be re manded.” (e mph a sis a dd e d) ); se e a lso Parker v. Della Rocc o, 252 F.3d 663, 666 ( 2d Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (noting that “§ 1447(c )...addr esses the c onsequenc es of a jurisdictional flaw, i.e

. , it mandates a

rema nd rathe r than a

dismiss al” ( emphasis in the orig inal)). Ac cording ly , we RE VE RSE the district court’s judg ment and REMAND with instructions for the district c ourt to r e mand

the matte r t o s tate c ourt . We take no vie w o n w he the r t he pe nd e nc y

of thi s appea l tolled Appellant’s time to appea l the housing c ourt judg ment, or on Appe llant’s entitlement to relief in the state appe llate cour ts based on the f

act that the state proc eeding continued to judg ment afte r it had bee n remove d. Appellant’s motions to submit corr ecte d briefs, to strike the Appellee s’ brief and opposition, and for sanc tions, inj unctive re lief, admission of documents, a nd a subpoena duces te cum ar e DENIED.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk