Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rogozienski v. Allen

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 8, 2008

FRANK E. ROGOZIENSKI, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JAMES D. ALLEN, ET. AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge

ORDER: DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Defendant Michael Love has filed a motion for this Court to reconsider its prior decision remanding the case to state court. [Doc. No. 11.] Plaintiff has filed an opposition and Defendant has filed a reply. [Docs. Nos. 12, 13.] Pursuant to Ninth Circuit law, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion for reconsideration.

The Ninth Circuit has explained that district courts lose jurisdiction over the case after remanding it to the state court:

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) requires a district court to remand a case to state court when it determines the case was improvidently removed. Remand orders based on section 1447(c) are unreviewable on 'appeal or otherwise.' 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d).

This language has been universally construed to preclude not only appellate review but also reconsideration by the district court. Once a district court certifies a remand order to state court it is divested of jurisdiction and can take no further action on the case. See New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Majoue, 802 F.2d 166, 167 (5th Cir. 1986)(per curiam); Pelleport Investors, Inc. v. Budco Quality Theatres, Inc., 741 F.2d 273, 279 n. 3 (9th Cir. 1984); Three J Farms, Inc. v. Alton Box Board Co., 609 F.2d 112, 115 (4th Cir. 1979); Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Santiago Plaza, 598 F.2d 634, 636 (1st Cir. 1979)(per curiam); 14A C. Wright, A. Miller, E. Cooper, Federal Practice & Proc. § 3739, at 589 (1985). . . A remand order returns the case to the state courts and the federal court has no power to retrieve it. As the statute makes clear, if the remand order is based on section 1447(c), a district court has no power to correct or vacate it. Id.

Seedman v. United States Dist. Court, 837 F.2d 413 (9th Cir. Cal. 1988) (emphasis added); see also Wash. State Bar Ass'n v. Keefe, 234 Fed. Appx. 510 (9th Cir. 2007); Thomas v. Guar. Bank, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47120 (D. Idaho June 27, 2007) (citing Seedman and denying motion for reconsideration on similar grounds). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion for reconsideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20080708

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.