San Mateo County Sheriffs's Office v. Lopez

Filing 11

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Denying 10 Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFFS'S

8

Case No. 18-cv-00066-EMC

OFFICE,
Plaintiff,

9
10

v.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Docket No. 10

RICARDO JOSE CALDERON LOPEZ,

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

Defendant.

13
14

The Court previously remanded this case to the California Superior Court on the basis that

15

it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the removed case did not involve a federal question.

16

See Docket No. 5. Defendant seeks leave to file a motion for reconsideration under Local Civil

17

Rule 7-9. Though Defendant claims the order was “erroneous” and “based on a manifest

18

failure . . . to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments,” Defendant does not explain

19

what the purported errors were nor which legal arguments or facts the Court failed to consider.

20

Thus, he has not met his burden to show that leave to file a motion for reconsideration is

21

warranted.

22

In any case, such a motion would be futile. The Court has already transferred the matter to

23

the California Superior Court, so it no longer has jurisdiction over it. Further, “[a]n order

24

remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or

25

otherwise,” except when removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442 or 28 U.S.C. § 1443. See 28

26

U.S.C. § 1447(d). This rule also precludes reconsideration by the district court. See Seedman v.

27

United States Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988) (non-

28

reviewability language “has been universally construed to preclude not only appellate review but

1

also reconsideration by the district court”). Defendant removed the case on the basis of 28 U.S.C.

2

§§ 1441(a) and 1446(a), so the exceptions to non-reviewability do not apply.

3

Defendant’s motion is DENIED.

4

This order disposes of Docket No. 10.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9
10

Dated: January 23, 2018
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2