Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00105/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00105-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 150
Nature of Suit: Overpayments &amp; Enforcement of Judgments
Cause of Action: 9:9 Motion to Confirm Arbitration Loan

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SOUTH SHORE RANCHES, LLC, and )

JMZ DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, )

LLC, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v. )

)

LAKELANDS COMPANY, LLC, and )

DOES 1 through 25, inclusive )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1:09-cv-105 AWI DLB

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO VACATE

DISMISSAL, and ORDER FOR

ADDITIONAL BRIEFING

(Doc. No. 78)

Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ two motions to vacate under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 60(b)(3) – one requests vacating the order granting sanctions and the other requests

vacating the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ complaint. Plaintiff also moves the Court to sanction

Defendant under the Court’s inherent authority. For the reasons the follow, the motion to vacate

the dismissal and remand order will be denied, the request for sanctions will be deferred, the

motion to vacate the sanctions award will be deferred, and the parties will file additional briefing. 

I. Motion To Vacate Dismissal & Remand Order

The Court dismissed and remanded this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) due to lack

of subject matter jurisdiction. See Court’s Docket Doc. No. 48. 

“An order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not

Case 1:09-cv-00105-AWI-DLB Document 91 Filed 05/06/10 Page 1 of 3
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

reviewable on appeal or otherwise, except that an order remanding a case to the State court from

which it was removed pursuant to [28 USCS § 1443] shall be reviewable by 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.” Seedman v. United States Dist. Court, 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988); see Shapiro v.

Logistec USA Inc., 412 F.3d 307, 312 (2d Cir. 2005). “28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) prohibits review of

all remand orders issued pursuant to section 1447(c) whether erroneous or not and whether

review is sought by extraordinary writ or by any other means.” Whitman v. Raley’s Inc., 886

F.2d 1177, 1180 (9th Cir. 1989). “[I]f the remand order is based on § 1447(c), a district court has

no authority to correct or vacate [the remand order].” Seedman, 837 F.2d at 414. 

Here, Plaintiff cites no authority that a Court can vacate a 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) remand

order through Rule 60(b)(3), nor does Plaintiff cite Whittman or Seedman. Given the clear

language of Whittman and Seedman, the Court lacks the authority to reconsider its dismissal and

remand order. See Whitman, 886 F.2d at 1180; Seedman, 837 F.2d at 414. Plaintiff’s Rule

60(b)(3) motion to vacate the Court’s dismissal and remand order will be denied. 

II. Additional Briefing

Plaintiffs have submitted deposition excerpts from Les Allen. Those excerpts indicate

that he is a citizen of Australia, he has never been a citizen of the United States, he is not an

owner of Lakelands, Lakelands is owned by Resort Property Management, LLC (“RPM”) (which

is “incorporated” in Colorado), and Allen is not an owner of RPM. Allen’s deposition testimony 1

creates questions in the Court’s mind regarding the sanctions that the Court imposed upon

Plaintiffs and their counsel. As such, the Court will order supplemental briefing regarding: (1)

Allen’s deposition testimony and Rule 60(b)(2); (2)whether the sanctions award should be fully

The citizenship of RPM, however, has not been established because, as an LLC, its state of “incorporation”

1

does not determine its citizenship. See Johnson v. Columbiz Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir.

2006).

2

Case 1:09-cv-00105-AWI-DLB Document 91 Filed 05/06/10 Page 2 of 3
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

vacated, partially vacated (i.e. reduced), or not disturbed, and; (3) if partially vacated, by how

much. In the additional briefing, the parties may also discuss RPM, and Lakelands may further

discuss its basis for arguing that the Court did not have diversity jurisdiction over this matter. 

The Court will refrain from ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the sanctions award, and

Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions, until it has received this additional briefing.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs seek vacation of two orders and also request sanctions. Vacation of the

dismissal and remand order is inappropriate because, once a case like this is remanded under 28

U.S.C. § 1447(c), the Court has no ability to review or reconsider that order. As for the sanctions

order, because the deposition testimony of Les Allen raises questions in the Court’s mind,

additional briefing will be ordered. The Court will withhold ruling on Plaintiffs’ sanctions

request and motion to vacate sanctions award until it has received the additional briefing.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the dismissal and remand order (Document No. 78) is

DENIED;

2. On or by May 17, 2010, the parties shall file additional briefing, as described above by

this order; and

3. The parties shall file responses to the additional briefing on or by May 24, 2010.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2010 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

If the Court determines that oral argument is appropriate after reviewing the additional briefing, the Court

2

will set a hearing date.

3

Case 1:09-cv-00105-AWI-DLB Document 91 Filed 05/06/10 Page 3 of 3