UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

**********************************

*

Pamela Taber-McCarthy *

*

 Petitioner *

*

 v. * Case Number 1:08-cv-96-PB

*

Ricky C. McCarthy *

*

 Respondent *

*

**********************************

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR REMAND

The petitioner, Pamela Taber-McCarthy, hereby moves that the Court 

remand this case to the Hillsborough County Superior Court, Northern District, 

because Respondent failed to timely file for removal and because this Court lacks 

subject matter jurisdiction. The grounds for this motion are set forth more 

particularly below.

1. In order for a removal to be timely, a notice of removal must be filed within 

thirty days of receipt of the complaint or some other amended pleading, 

motion or other paper in which it can be ascertained that the matter is 

removable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).

2. “The time limitations in Section 1446 are mandatory and must be strictly 

construed. The thirty day period allowed for removal is mandatory, and 

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB Document 4 Filed 03/23/08 Page 1 of 4
2

remand is required if the deadline is not met.” Luce v. Lloyd's of London, 

868 F.Supp. 625, 626 (D.Vt. 1994).

3. Respondent seeks removal on account of “filed pleadings with the State 

Court seeking a further order with regard to the wording of the QDRO.” 

Respondent’s Amended Petition for Removal at ¶5.

4. The subject state court pleading is dated November 26, 2007. See Motion 

for Further Order Regarding Distribution of Retirement and Wording of 

QDRO at 3 (filed with this Court by Respondent with initial Petition for 

Removal).

5. Accordingly, Respondent had to file the notice of removal on or before 

December 26, 2007.

6. Respondent did not file the notice of removal until March 13, 2008.

7. Therefore, the notice of removal was untimely.

8. In addition to the notice of removal being untimely, there are no grounds 

for subject matter jurisdiction.

9. The pleading that Respondent seeks to litigate in this Court involves the 

issuance of a QDRO (qualified domestic relations order).

10. This Court has no jurisdiction over QDROs. 29 U.S.C. § 

1056(d)(3)(B)(ii)(II); Hunter v. Ameritech, 779 F.Supp. 419, 420-21 

(N.D.Ill. 1991) (“This Court of course has no power to issue a QDRO itself, 

and it cannot be known whether Ameritech will or will not become subject 

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB Document 4 Filed 03/23/08 Page 2 of 4
3

to one unless and until the only court having jurisdiction to do so-the 

Circuit Court of Cook County-decides that question”).

11. Accordingly, for this reason as well this case should be remanded. 28 

U.S.C. § 1446(c).

12. No supporting memorandum accompanies this motion because the relevant 

legal authorities are contained in this motion.

WHEREFORE, the petitioner, Pamela Taber-McCarthy, respectfully 

requests that the Court:

A. Grant this motion and remand this case to the Hillsborough County 

Superior Court, Northern District; and 

B. Grant such other and further relief as justice and equity require.

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB Document 4 Filed 03/23/08 Page 3 of 4
4

Respectfully submitted,

Pamela Taber-McCarthy,

By her Attorney

MOSCA LAW OFFICE

/s/ Edward C. Mosca 

27 Webster Street

Manchester, NH 03104

(603) 628-3695

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 23, 2008 I served the foregoing by ECF on 

Kevin Bucholz, Esquire. Counsel of record for Respondent, and by had-delivering 

a copy to Law Office of Kathleen Sternenberg, 27 Webster Street, Manchester, 

NH 03104, counsel for Petitioner.

/s/ Edward C. Mosca 

Edward C. Mosca

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB Document 4 Filed 03/23/08 Page 4 of 4