Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01052/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01052-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1002 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On September 6, 2012, the Magistrate Judge remanded this matter to the Fresno County 

Superior Court following Plaintiff’s motion to remand. See Doc. No. 22. Fourteen days after the 

remand motion had been sent to the Fresno County Superior Court, Defendant filed a motion for 

reconsideration on September 20, 2012. See Doc. No. 26. On October 5, 2012, the Court denied 

reconsideration because the matter had been remanded due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction 

and the Fresno Superior Court had already received the case back from this Court. See Doc. No. 

30. On October 12, 2012, Defendant appealed the Court’s denial of reconsideration.

On June 8, 2015, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded. See Doc. No. 40. Although 

the Ninth Circuit had not previously addressed a Magistrate Judge’s ability to remand a case, the 

Ninth Circuit followed other circuit courts and concluded that Magistrate Judges cannot remand a 

case. See id. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case for this Court to either rule on the motion to 

remand or to refer the motion to remand to the Magistrate Judge for the purpose of issuing a 

findings and recommendation. See id. On July 1, 2015, the Ninth Circuit issued mandate. See

Doc. No. 41.

LAURA J. FLAM,

Plaintiff

v.

MARSHALL S. FLAM, M.D.,

Defendant

CASE NO. 1:12-CV-1052 AWI DLB 

ORDER TAKING MATTER UNDER 

SUBMISSION FOLLOWING 

MANDATE

(Doc. Nos. 8, 40, 41)

Case 1:12-cv-01052-AWI-DLB Document 42 Filed 07/23/15 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

The Court will follow the Ninth Circuit’s instructions and rule on the motion to remand. 

See Doc. No. 40; see also Hall v. City of Los Angeles, 697 F.3d 1059, 1067 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(discussing the rule of mandate). In ruling on the motion to remand, the Court will 

consider the initial briefing on the motion to remand, as well as the briefing filed with 

Defendant’s request for reconsideration. At this time, the Court intends to decide the 

motion on the papers and without oral argument. See Local Rule 270. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to remand (Doc. 

No. 8) is taken under submission.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 23, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01052-AWI-DLB Document 42 Filed 07/23/15 Page 2 of 2