Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02272/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02272-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC LEE, on behalf of 

himself and all others

similarly situated,

NO. CIV. S-05-2272 LKK/DAD

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

BEN BRIDGE JEWELER, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

This matter is before the court on the request of defendant,

Ben Bridge Jeweler, Inc., (“defendant”) for reconsideration and

its second notice of removal. In an order issued on November 17,

2005, the court remanded the case to state court for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Specifically, defendant failed to establish that the amount in

controversy exceeded $75,000, and thus, there was no diversity

jurisdiction. Id. Defendant now requests that the court

reconsider its order remanding the case to state court. 

Case 2:05-cv-02272-LKK -DAD Document 12 Filed 12/19/05 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

2

The court cannot reconsider its order to remand. Pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), a district court must 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.” Seedman v. U.S. Dist.

Court for Cent. Dist. of California, 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir.

1988). Moreover, “[o]nce a district court certifies a remand order

to state court it is divested of jurisdiction and can take no

further action on the case.” Id. For this reason, the request for

reconsideration is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to serve a copy

of this order on the Superior Court of the State of California in

and for the County of Sacramento.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: December 19, 2005

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:05-cv-02272-LKK -DAD Document 12 Filed 12/19/05 Page 2 of 2