Diane Rosenberg v. Lucrezia Canaday, No. 13-2225 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2225 DIANE S. ROSENBERG; MARK D. MEYER; JOHN A. ANSELL, III; KENNETH SAVITZ; STEPHANIE MONTGOMERY, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. LUCREZIA IONA CANADAY; KEVIN C. BETSKOFF, JR., Defendants - Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:13-cv-01922-GLR) Submitted: February 26, 2014 Decided: March 11, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lucrezia Iona Canaday; Kevin C. Betskoff, Jr., Appellants Pro Se. Mark David Meyer, Stephanie R. Montgomery, ROSENBERG & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lucrezia Canaday and Kevin Betskoff, Jr., seek to appeal the district court s order remanding their case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. An order remanding a case to state court is generally not reviewable on appeal or 1447(c) otherwise. allows a 28 U.S.C. district court § 1447(d) to (2012). remand based Section on: (1) a district court s lack of subject matter jurisdiction or (2) a defect in removal other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction . . . . E.D. ex rel. Darcy v. Pfizer, Inc., 722 F.3d 574, 579 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). review is § 1447(c). barred Id. if the order (internal was quotation based marks on and Appellate grounds in alterations omitted). Thus, because the district court s remand order was grounded upon § 1447(c)(1), § 1447(d) requires that we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In light determination, we deny Appellants motion to stay. of this We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.