Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01985/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01985-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 210
Nature of Suit: Land Condemnation
Cause of Action: 28:1446 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

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Arizona Public Service Company, an

Arizona public service corporation, 

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, 

vs.

Deer Valley Lodging Investors, LLC, a

Wisconsin limited liability company; Deer

Valley Hotel Investors, II, LLC, a

Wisconsin limited liability company; Deer

Valley Restaurant Investors, LLC, a

Wisconsin limited liability company; M&I

Marshall & Ilsley Bank, a Wisconsin

corporation; American Asphalt & Grading

Company, a Nevada corporation;

Maricopa County; John Does I-X; Jane

Does I-X; ABC Partnerships I-X; and

XYZ Corporations or Other Entities I-X;

and Unknown Heirs, Devisees, and Trust

Beneficiaries of the Above-Named

Defendants, if deceased, 

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-1985-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s

Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. (Doc. 21). For the reasons contained herein,

the Court denies Defendants’ motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed a condemnation suit in state court against Defendants Deer Valley

Lodging Investors, LLC, and Maricopa County, on December 23, 2009, seeking an easement

Case 2:10-cv-01985-GMS Document 22 Filed 03/09/11 Page 1 of 4
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 -

through Maricopa County Assessor’s Parcel Number 210-05-942 that would remain in effect

throughout the duration of Defendants’ lease on that property. (Doc. 8). Plaintiff filed an

amended complaint naming all current Defendants on January 14, 2010. (Doc. 8). Maricopa

County disclaimed its interest in the real property in question on September 2, 2010. (Doc.

1). Defendants, Deer Valley and M & I Marshall & Ilsley Bank, then filed a Notice of

Removal on September 15, 2010, alleging complete diversity of citizenship and damages in

excess of $300,000. (Doc. 1). 

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand alleging that Defendants’ Notice of Removal was

untimely and procedurally improper because not all Defendants “consented to removal.”

(Doc. 8). Plaintiff, in both its motion and Reply, raised the argument that neither Maricopa

County nor American Asphalt and Grading Co. consented to removal. (Doc. 8, 11).

However, Defendants failed to address this issue in their response. (Doc. 10). The Court

granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand on the basis of lack of unanimous joinder of defendants

in the Notice of Removal. (Doc. 19). Defendants then filed this Motion for Reconsideration.

(Doc. 21).

LEGAL STANDARD

A motion for reconsideration is meant to correct “manifest error” or to present “new

facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with

reasonable diligence.” LOCAL R.CIV. P. 7.2(g). The granting of a motion for reconsideration

“is an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.” 11C. WRIGHT & A. MILLER,

FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2810.1 (2d ed. 1995). Such a motion “‘may not be

used to relitigate old matters, or to raise argument or present evidence that could have been

raised prior to the entry of judgment.’” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5

(2008) (quoting WRIGHT & MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2810.1). “A

motion for reconsideration should not be used to ask a court ‘to rethink what the court had

already thought through – rightly or wrongly.’” Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909

F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995) (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing,

Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). 

Case 2:10-cv-01985-GMS Document 22 Filed 03/09/11 Page 2 of 4
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

- 3 -

I. Manifest Error

In their Motion for Reconsideration, Defendants request that the Court reconsider its

granting of Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand on the basis of “manifest error.” (Doc. 21).

Defendants argue that the legal arguments addressed by the Court were not mentioned in

Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, and, as such, Defendants were not aware of the procedural

defect contained within their Notice of Removal until the Court ruled on Plaintiff’s motion.

Defendants are mistaken. 

The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion on the basis of lack of unanimous joinder of all

defendants in the Notice of Removal, and Defendants’ failure to offer explanation for such

lack of unanimity. (Doc. 19). The Court did not raise the issue of lack of unanimity sua

sponte. On the contrary, it was explicitly raised in Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand: “Moreover,

both Maricopa County and Defendant American Asphalt and Grading Co. are still parties to

this lawsuit, and Defendants’ Notice of Removal does not indicate those parties consent to

removal.” (Doc. 8). Defendants attempt to cast doubt upon the basis for the Court’s decision

when a simple reading of the underlying motion proves its soundness. In as much as

Defendants’ “manifest error” claim is based upon this issue, it fails.

II. Remand Order Not Reviewable

Notwithstanding the above grounds for denying Defendants’ Motion for

Reconsideration, “[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.” Seedman v. United States Dist.

Court, 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988). Section 1447(d) provides that “[a]n order

remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal

or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). The language of section 1447(d) “has been universally

construed to preclude not only appellate review but also reconsideration by the district

court.” Seedman, 837 F.2d at 414. The Supreme Court has held that section 1447(d) only

prohibits review of remand orders issued pursuant to a ground enumerated in section 1447(c).

Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 127–28 (1995). Remand by a district

court on the basis of the unanimity rule is a defect under section 1447(c), and as such, review

Case 2:10-cv-01985-GMS Document 22 Filed 03/09/11 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

is unavailable. Atl. Nat’l Trust LLC v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 621 F.3d 931, 938 (9th Cir.

2010) (holding that remand based upon lack of unanimity is a remand based upon 1447(c),

even if the district court did not cite that statute).

The Court fully considered Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand and Defendants’ Response

to that motion. The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion on the section 1447(c) ground of lack

of unanimous joinder by defendants in their Notice of Removal. The Court has disposed of

this matter and has certified this case back to the state court from which it came.

Accordingly, the Court has no authority to reconsider its decision in this matter. Because the

Court is specifically barred by statute from reconsideration of this matter, and, in any event,

because the Court deems proper its disposition of Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, Defendants’

Motion for Reconsideration is denied.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration

(Doc. 21) is DENIED.

Dated this 9th day of March, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-01985-GMS Document 22 Filed 03/09/11 Page 4 of 4