Davidson et al v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. et al

Filing 27

ORDER by Judge Chhabria denying 26 Ex Parte Application. (vclc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/9/2016)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM DAVIDSON, et al.,

Case No. 16-cv-05766-VC

Plaintiffs,
ORDER DENYING STAY

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 26
ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC., et al.,
Defendants.

Assuming the truth of every nonconclusory factual allegation in the defendants' amended
notice of removal, and liberally construing the scope of 28 U.S.C. § 1442, the defendants have
failed to meet their rudimentary pleading burden for federal officer removal.1 The defendants'
request for a stay is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 9, 2016
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

1

The Court notes that it has jurisdiction to consider the motion to stay only because the order
remanding the case is appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). See Supreme Court of California v.
Kinney, No. 3:15-CV-01552-LB, 2015 WL 3833321, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2015); Maui
Land & Pineapple Co. v. Occidental Chem. Corp., 24 F. Supp. 2d 1083, 1085 (D. Haw. 1998).
Ordinarily, "[o]nce 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. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent.
Dist. of California, 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988).