* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

APR 28 2005

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

HOLLI LUNDAHL,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE

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.

No. 04-4243

(D.C. No. 2:04-CV-87-PGC)

(D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , KELLY , and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.
-2-

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
-3-

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