Garcon, et al. v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al.

Filing 99

ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Clerk's Judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) is denied and the action shall remain terminated. (See document for details). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 11/18/11.(LAD)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al, ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) Lionel Garcon; Maria C. Garcon, No. CV-10-1006-PHX-GMS ORDER 15 16 17 18 19 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment filed under Rule 59(e). (Doc. 96). For the reasons stated below, the motion is denied. BACKGROUND 20 The background facts of this case may be found in the Court’s order of November 2 21 granting summary judgment to the Defendants. (Doc. 91). Relevant to the current motion, 22 the case was removed from Maricopa County Superior Court on May 10, 2010. (Doc. 1). 23 Plaintiffs then filed a Motion for an Order to Remand, stating that by “specifically and 24 clearly demanding, in paragraph 10 of the Complaint, for Honorable Bethany Hicks, a 25 personality with strong adjacent knowledge of the incident,” they had “carefully and 26 sufficiently anchored the matter in Maricopa County Superior Court.” (Doc. 10). Upon 27 obtaining an attorney, Plaintiffs promptly stipulated to withdraw the motion, which was 28 withdrawn on May 28, 2010. (Doc. 16). Plaintiffs now contend that the Court had no 1 jurisdiction to rule on Defendants’ summary judgment motion because Defendants never 2 filed a response to the remand motion, as they were ordered to do by the Court before the 3 motion was withdrawn. (Doc. 11). 4 5 DISCUSSION 1. Legal Standard 6 Under Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration may be granted only on one of four 7 grounds: “1) the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the 8 judgment is based; 2) the moving party presents newly discovered or previously unavailable 9 evidence; 3) the motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or 4) there is an 10 intervening change in controlling law.” Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co., 338 F.3d 11 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations and emphasis omitted). 12 2. Analysis 13 Plaintiffs contend that Defendants never responded to their motion to remand, and that 14 the Court ought to have remanded the case to the Maricopa County Superior Court under 28 15 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4) (2006). They contend that since Defendants never responded to their 16 motion, the district court had no jurisdiction to rule upon Defendants’ motion for summary 17 judgment. (Doc. 96 at 3). The motion to remand was withdrawn, per a stipulation filed by 18 Defendants’ attorney on May 27, 2010, and subsequently did not require a response. (Doc. 19 15). Moreover, even had the motion not been withdrawn, it would have been denied. 20 Plaintiffs have themselves subsequently stipulated that they sought more than $75,000 in this 21 action–in their pre-settlement case synopsis they stated that their counter-offer to Defendants’ 22 original offer was $6,000,000, adequate to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement. 23 (Doc. 78 at 5). 24 When Plaintiffs and Defendants are citizens of different states, as Plaintiffs do not 25 deny, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, the federal courts have subject-matter 26 jurisdiction to hear the controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) (2006). Any case in which the 27 district court would have had such original jurisdiction “may be removed by the defendant 28 or defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing -2- 1 the place where the action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (2006). The Court had 2 jurisdiction to rule on Defendants’ summary judgment motion. 3 CONCLUSION 4 Defendants did not need to file a response to the motion to remand after that motion 5 was withdrawn. Plaintiffs have acknowledged that they seek in excess of $75,000 and they 6 reside in a different state than Defendants, so the remand motion would have been denied in 7 any event. The case was properly removed to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 8 9 10 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Alter or Amend Clerk’s Judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) is denied and the action shall remain terminated. DATED this 18th day of November, 2011. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?