Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-05762/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-05762-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Such relief would be unnecessary in any event because the undersigned district judge issued

the remand order after this case was randomly reassigned from the magistrate judge. See Docket

Item No. 11. 

1

CASE NO. 5:13-cv-05762 EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO VACATE

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BARBARA THOMEN, et. al.,

Plaintiff(s),

 v.

MARCO BREW, et. al.,

Defendant(s). /

CASE NO. 5:13-cv-05762 EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO VACATE

[Docket Item No(s). 17]

As review of the order remanding this action to the superior court is barred by 28 U.S.C. §

1447(d), Defendants’ Motion to Vacate (Docket Item No. 17) is DENIED. Seedman v. C.D. Cal.,

837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988) (explaining that the § 1447(d) review bar “has been universally

construed to preclude not only appellate review but also reconsideration by the district court.”).

In addition, Defendants’ request for random reassignment to a district judge is DENIED as

this court can take no further action in this matter. See id. (“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.”).1

No further motions of this type will be considered and should not be filed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2014 

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-05762-EJD Document 18 Filed 01/03/14 Page 1 of 1