Such an order implicates no constitutional concern because it ‘does not signify a district court’s assessment of the legal merits of the complaint.’ It therefore does not raise the issue of a district court adjudicating the merits of a ‘case or controversy’ over which it lacks jurisdiction.” Id. at 138, 112 S.Ct. 1076 (citation omitted) (quoting Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990)). B. Application of Law to Facts: Fees “[I]t is clear than an award of attorney’s fees is a collateral matter over which a court normally retains jurisdiction even after being divested of jurisdiction on the merits.” Moore v. Permanente Med. Group., Inc., 981 F.2d 443, 445 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Mints v. Educ. Testing Serv., 99 F.3d 1253, 1258 (3d Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). This court’s rulings on fee matters in the
holding that the state court is revested with jurisdiction when a federal district court executes the remand order and mails a certified copy of the order to the state court holding that the mailing of a certified copy of a remand order to a state court divests federal jurisdiction holding the divesting of jurisdiction by the mailing of a certified copy of the order of remand does not preclude the award of attorneys fees and costs holding that mere entry of a remand order divests a federal court of jurisdiction even where no certified copy of the order was mailed to a state court recognizing that an award of temporary attorneys fees and costs is based on an assessment of need and ability to pay as well as the reasonableness of the fees and costs