Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01698/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01698-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Injunctive/Declaratory Relief

---

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

COUNTY OF MADERA, a political )

subdivision of the State of California )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v. )

)

PICAYUNE RANCHERIA OF THE )

CHUKCHANSI INDIANS, a tribal )

entity, et. al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CIV F 06-1698 AWI DLB

ORDER ON THE

DEFENDANTS’S MOTION TO

RECONSIDER REMAND

On November 21, 2006, this case was removed from the Superior Court of Madera

County. On December 18, 2006, this Court granted the County of Madera’s motion to remand

the case back to the Superior Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). See Court’s Docket Document

No. 122. The order was docketed on December 18, 2006, at 3:08 p.m. See id. The docket

notation includes “(cc: certified copy mailed to Superior Court of Madera).” See id. Defendants

filed a motion for reconsideration of the order to remand on December 18, 2006, at 9:22 p.m. 

See Court’s Docket Document No. 123. 

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

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

Case 1:06-cv-01698-AWI-DLB Document 125 Filed 12/22/06 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

This case was removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) and not 28 U.S.C. § 1443. See Court’s Docket 1

Document No. 2.

The Court notes that the motion to reconsider requests that the Court dismiss the case under the “futility 2

doctrine” instead of remanding it.

2

otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). “This language has been universally construed to preclude 1

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). “The

event that divests the district court of jurisdiction is the mailing of the certified copy of the order

of remand to the clerk of the state court.” MacLeod v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust, 886

F.Supp. 16, 19 (D. Or. 1995) (citing Seedman, 837 F.2d at 414).

Here, the notation in the docket entry “cc: certified copy mailed to Superior Court of

Madera” is a method of the Clerk to indicate that a certified copy of the remand order has been

mailed to the state court. The Clerk’s office hours in this Division are from 9:00 a.m to 4:00

p.m. Since the motion to reconsider was filed at 9:22 p.m., it was filed after a certified copy of

the remand order had been mailed. Because the remand was based on 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), and

the motion to reconsider was filed after a certified copy of the remand order had been mailed to 2

the Superior Court of Madera, this Court has been divested of jurisdiction and cannot consider

the motion to reconsider the remand order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); Seedman, 837 F.2d at 414;

MacLeod, 886 F.Supp. at 19. 

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01698-AWI-DLB Document 125 Filed 12/22/06 Page 2 of 2