IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Honorable Marcia S. Krieger
Civil Action No. 06cv01702MSKBNB
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
THIS MATTER comes before the Court pursuant to the Defendant’s pro se Motion for
Reconsideration (# 4).
The Court’s docket does not reflect whether the prior remand order has been served and
carried out. If it has, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider any further filings. See e.g. Aetna
U.S. Healthcare, Inc. v Hoechst Aktiengesekkschaft, 67 F.Supp.2d 1242, 1245 (D. Kan. 1999).
Even assuming the Court had jurisdiction to reconsider, it would nevertheless deny the
Defendant’s motion. It is undisputed that the claims asserted on the face of the Complaint –
proceedings under Colorado’s foreclosure laws – do not present a federal question. Franchise
Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust For Southern California, 463 U.S. 1, 911
(1983), citing Taylor v. Anderson, 234 U.S. 74, 7576 (1914). The Defendant’s assertion that
proceedings in Colorado courts are federal in nature is frivolous, even by the liberal standards
applicable to pro se pleadings.
Case 1:06-cv-01702-MSK Document 5 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 1 of 2
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ricotta
Accordingly, the Motion for Reconsideration (# 4) is DENIED. The Court advises the
Defendant that it lacks any further jurisdiction over this proceeding, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), and will
disregard any further filings in this case.
Dated this 6th day of September, 2006
BY THE COURT:
Marcia S. Krieger
United States District Judge
Case 1:06-cv-01702-MSK Document 5 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 2 of 2