Opinion
2:13-cv-02159-GEB-KJN
01-08-2014
ORDER
On January 6, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to reconsider an order remanding this case to state court and, in the alternative, a motion to stay the remand order pending the Ninth Circuit's resolution of Defendants' Petition for Permission to Appeal the remand order. On the same day, Defendants also filed an ex parte application and proposed order to stay the remand order pending the Ninth Circuit's determination of their Petition for Permission to Appeal and pending the district court's determination of their Motion to Reconsider. However, Defendants have not shown that under the circumstances here, where the case has already been remanded to the state court, that the federal district court retains authority to consider the filed documents. See Seedman v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988) ("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 also e.g., Homestead Ins. Co., Inc. v. Casden Co., 234 F. App'x 434, 435 (9th Cir. 2007) ("The district court's certification of its April 2003 remand order to the state court on May 1, 2003 divested the district court of jurisdiction to correct or vacate the remand order."); Flam v. Flam, 1:12-CV-1052 AWI DLB, 2012 WL 4770670, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2012) (finding district court lacked jurisdiction to reconsider magistrate's remand order); Rogozienski v. Allen, 08CV316 JLS (AJB), 2008 WL 2697178, at *1 (S.D. Cal. July 8, 2008)(finding district court lacked jurisdiction reconsider district court's remand order).
Therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction to consider the filed documents.
________________
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
Senior United States District Judge