Ludwig Distributing Company Inc et al v. Pabst Brewing Company et al

Filing 22

ORDER denying defendants' 11 12 MOTIONS for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Brian S. Miller on 3/4/10. (bkp)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION LUDWIG DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, INC. and MCBRIDE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, INC. v. CASE NO. 5:10-CV-33 BSM PLAINTIFF PABST BREWING COMPANY, HEINEKEN USA INC., CROWN IMPORTS, LLC THE BOSTON BEER COMPANY, and C.R. FORTUNE BEER COMPANY ORDER DEFENDANT The motions for reconsideration of Defendants Heineken USA Inc., Boston Beer Company, and Pabst Brewing Company (Doc. Nos. 11, 12) are denied. Defendants move for reconsideration of the February 12, 2010 order remanding this case to the Circuit Court of Arkansas County, Arkansas (Doc. No. 6). In response, plaintiffs argue that 28 U.S.C. 1447(d) bars reconsideration or appeal of a district court's order of remand. Defendants cite Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 1862 (2009) for the proposition that the remand order can be reconsidered despite the dictates of 28 U.S.C. 1447(d), because it is unclear whether the case was remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Although there is some question as to whether Carlsbad stands for the proposition for which it is offered, there is no question that Carlsbad is distinguished from this case. In Calsbad, the Supreme Court held that the federal court of appeals had jurisdiction to review the district court's remand where the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a number of state law claims. Id. In this case, plaintiff's claims were clearly remanded under 28 U.S.C. 1447(c) due to the lack of diversity of the parties and, consequently, for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, the remand order may not be reconsidered under section 1447(d). See Carlson v. Arrowhead Concrete Works, Inc., 445 F.3d 1046, 1054 (8th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, defendants' motion for reconsideration (Docket Nos. 11, 12) is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of March, 2010. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?