BLUE FOUNDRY BANK v. ARSENIS

Opinion

UNITESDT ATEDSI STRICCOTU RT DISTRIOCFNT E WJ ERSEY BLUFEO UNDBRAYN (Kf /Bko/ial ing SpriSnagvsiB nagnsk ), Plaintiff, CivAicltN ioo2.n3 -2(3R4K1()9T JB) v. MEMORANDUM ORDER CHRYSSOAURLSAE NSIPSY,R IDON ARSENGIESO,R GAER SENTIHSO,M AS S.PETEARNSD,R EEW.H AL&LS ON, INC.U,N ITSETDA TOEFSA MERICA, JPMORGCAHNA SBEA NNKA a,n d STATOEFN EWJ ERSEY, Defendants. THIMSA TTEcRo mbeesfo trheCe o uurptoa nM otitooSn t aEyx ecuotfRi eomna nd OrdPeern dAipnpge( a"lM,T ESC,FN" o 2.9 fi)l,eb dyp rsoe D efendCahrynstsso Aurlsae nis, GeorAgres eanniSdsp ,y rAirdsoen(n ti"hsAe r sDeenfeinsd aBnltuFseo" u)n.Bd arnyfk /k /a BoilSipnrgiS nagvsiB nagn(sk" PlafiilnaetM die fmfo'r)a inOndp upmo s(i"tOipoEpnC.,NF, o ". 33a)n,td h Aer seDneifesn dfialneatRd se pBlryi (e"fR,e pElCyFN, o"3. 4 T)h.Ce o uhrats consitdhepera erdts iuebsm'i sasnrideo snostl hmveae stw tietrh ooruaatrl g upmuernsttu oa nt FedeRrualoleCf i vPirlo ce7d8au nLrdoe c CailvR iull7 e8 .F1ot.rh r ee assoefontrs tb he laonwd, forg oocda ussheo wn, IT oIntS h 1e2 dtahoy fA ugu2s0t2O,4R ,D EREaDsfo llows: 1.ThAer seDneifse nMdoatnittSoostn 'ia DsyE NIEaDsm ooOtnJ. u 2l3y2, 0 2t4hT,eh ird Cirdciusimtit shsee dAD resfeenndiaaspn ptfoesra'l l a ocfak p pejlulraitse(d EiCcFtion. No3.5 s;e ied.a *t2 ( ci2t8Ui .nSg§. 1 C4.4 7(("dAo)nr dreerm andciatnstogeh Seat ate court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise, except that an order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed pursuant to section 1442 or 1443 of this title shall be reviewable by appeal or otherwise.”).) Moreover, even if the Motion were not moot, the Court would no longer have jurisdiction to rule on same. The Third Circuit has held that the “jurisdictional event” which divests a district court of jurisdiction is when “the certified copy of the remand order [is sent] to state court.” Agostini v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 729 F.3d 350, 356 (3d Cir. 2013) (“At the moment of mailing the jurisdictional event—the remand order became unreviewable ‘on appeal or otherwise.’”). The docket clearly reflects that the transmittal letter was mailed to Somerset County, (ECF No. 28), the day before the Arsenis Defendants filed the Motion to Stay, (ECF No. 29). 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the Motion pending at ECF No. 29. wn / □ / 4 f f a \ a ROBERT KigscH oe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ry