Court Opinion

ID: 9892151
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-20 18:00:46.624997+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:17:59.431187
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                     FILED
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                    OCT 20 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                                 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: LATASHA DENELL MITCHELL,                     No.   22-60040

                   Debtor,                          BAP No.21-1265

------------------------------
                                                    MEMORANDUM*
LATASHA RICHARDSON, AKA LaTasha
Denell Mitchell,

                   Appellant,

  v.

SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.,

                   Appellee.

                            Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
                             Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
            Taylor, Lafferty III, and Brand, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

                                 Submitted October 18, 2023 **
                                   San Francisco, California

Before: W. FLETCHER, NGUYEN, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

       *     This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
       **    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
       LaTasha Richardson appeals the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”)

decision affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying her April 2021 motion for

contempt sanctions against Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (“SPS”). We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). Reviewing the BAP’s decision de novo and

the bankruptcy court’s order for abuse of discretion, see In re Taggart, 980 F.3d

1340, 1347 (9th Cir. 2020), we affirm.

       Richardson argues that SPS improperly litigated in state court because the

bankruptcy court stayed its remand order before the order took effect. To be sure,

a remand order “is not self-executing.” Bucy v. Nev. Constr. Co., 125 F.2d 213,

217 (9th Cir. 1942). Jurisdiction does not transfer to the state court until it receives

“[a] certified copy of the order of remand.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see Seedman v.

U.S. Dist. Ct., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (“Once a [federal]

court certifies a remand order to state court it is divested of jurisdiction . . . .”).

       However, Richardson forfeited her right to challenge SPS’s conduct because

SPS was merely responding to her attempt to undo the state court’s adverse

summary judgment ruling. See Bucy, 125 F.2d at 218–19; cf. Roman Cath.

Archdiocese v. Acevedo Feliciano, 140 S. Ct. 696, 700 (2020) (per curiam)

(explaining that parties may defend their interests in state court when the state

court proceeds on a removed case despite lacking jurisdiction).

       AFFIRMED.

                                            2                                      22-60040