Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00316/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00316-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - [08cv316]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK E. ROGOZIENSKI,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08CV316 JLS (AJB)

ORDER: DENYING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

vs.

JAMES D. ALLEN, et. al.,

Defendants.

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

Case 3:08-cv-00316-JLS-AJB Document 14 Filed 07/08/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - [08cv316]

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.

DATED: July 8, 2008

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00316-JLS-AJB Document 14 Filed 07/08/08 Page 2 of 2