to superior court, Pulte filed its motion to dismiss and the Sullivans’ response. When the superior court granted Pulte’s motion to dismiss, the court specifically stated that it had received and considered the Sullivans’ response (originally filed in federal court). ¶ 9 There is no unfair treatment or constitutional violation here. The court considered the Sullivans’ response originally filed in federal court. See Ayres v. Wiswall, 112 U.S. 187, 190-91, 5 S.Ct. 90, 28 L.Ed. 693 (1884) (“[I]t will be for the State court, when the case gets back there, to determine what shall be done with pleadings filed ... during the pendency of the suit in the other jurisdiction.”); State ex rel. Village of Los Ranchos de Albuquerque v. City of Albuquerque, 119 N.M. 169, 889 P.2d 204, 207 (App.1993) (<HOLDING>). We are not dealing with a situation in which
recognizing that pleadings filed in federal court while the federal court has jurisdiction become part of the state court record on remand holding that a federal court litigant who is forced into state court under pullman may reserve a right to return to federal court in that the plaintiff can preserve the right to the federal forum for federal claims by informing the state court of his or her intention to return following litigation of the state claims in the state court holding that aedpa limits a federal habeas court to the record before the state court where a claim has been adjudicated on the merits by the state court holding that federal district court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear case notwithstanding rookerfeldman doctrine where plaintiff filed federal suit while certiorari petition to new mexico supreme court was pending in similar state court action holding that a federal court with diversity jurisdiction must apply the choiceoflaw rules of the state in which the federal court sits