Jacobs v. ABN-AMRO Bank N.V.
- Philip Halpern
- 7:25-cv-07533
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Jacobs v. ABN-AMRO Bank N.V., Judge Halpern denied an extension to appeal because the remand order was not appealable.
The party seeking additional time to file a notice of appeal, and the parties to the remanded case.
What happened
Jacobs v. ABN-AMRO Bank N.V. concerns a request for more time to appeal an order that sent the case back to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The filing also indicated that the party seeking more time intended to make a separate motion challenging actions taken during the removal and remand period.
Judge Philip M. Halpern denied the extension request, ruling that the remand order was not reviewable on appeal and that the federal court no longer had authority over the case’s merits after remand.
The detailed version
- Jacobs v. ABN-AMRO Bank N.V. · No. 7:25-cv-07533
- Philip Halpern
- Oct. 20, 2025
Background
The court had previously remanded the case to state court because it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, according to the October 20, 2025 order. The order identifies that earlier remand as the court’s September 17, 2025 order, listed as Document 5.
Motion
The filing sought an extension of time under Rule 4(a)(5) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure to file a notice of appeal. The filing also stated that the party did not intend to appeal the remand itself at that point but intended to file a separate motion challenging actions taken during the removal and remand period.
The opinion text contains an additional motion form naming Anthony Parks as plaintiff and Woodmont Ramaps LLC as defendant, rather than the parties identified in the supplied case name. It is unclear whether that text belongs to this case.
Ruling
The court denied the motion. It held that an order remanding a case to state court because the federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). The court further stated that, after remand, it had been deprived of authority over the merits of the case. The order also noted that any intended motion to void would be affected by that lack of authority.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.