In re: LATASHA DENELL MITCHELL v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: LATASHA DENELL MITCHELL,
Debtor,
------------------------------
LATASHA RICHARDSON, AKA LaTasha
Denell Mitchell,
Appellant,
v.
SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.,
Appellee.
No. 22-60040
BAP No.21-1265
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
OCT 20 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-60040
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 of 2 --