Waypoint Homes Inc v. Fagorala

Filing 11

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying Defendant's 10 Motion for Reconsideration (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/10/2012)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

WAYPOINT HOMES, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

Case No.: 12-CV-05282-YGR
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

vs.
ADE FAGORALA,

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

Defendant.
12
13

On November 14, 2012, the Court issued an Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand

14

Case and Denying Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (Dkt. No. 7 (“Remand Order”).)

15

The action was closed and the Clerk of this Court transmitted certified copies of docket entries and

16

the Remand Order to the Clerk of the Contra Costa County Superior Court. (Dkt. No. 8.)

17

Thereafter, Defendant Ade Fagorala filed an untimely opposition to the motion to remand, which

18

included a counter complaint and a motion to strike the motion to remand. (Dkt. No. 9.) Defendant

19

also filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Remand Order, which, in part, sought leave to

20

permit the late-filed opposition and counter complaint. (Dkt. No. 10.)

21

Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is improper. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 7-9(a), “[n]o

22

party may notice a motion for reconsideration without first obtaining leave of Court to file the

23

motion.” Defendant did not seek leave of Court and instead filed the motion itself. Moreover, the

24

Remand Order stated that the Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction, and the remand and

25

had already occurred prior to when Defendant filed the above documents. For these reasons, the

26

Court DENIES the motion for reconsideration.

27
28

Even putting aside the fact that Defendant’s filings were untimely and unauthorized, the
Court previously stated in its Remand Order that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction in this

1

action. Defendant has not provided any legal reason that there is now subject matter jurisdiction.

2

(See Remand Order at 2 (“A claim ‘arises under’ federal law if, based on the ‘well-pleaded

3

complaint rule,’ the plaintiff alleges a federal claim for relief. Vaden v. Discovery Bank, 556 U.S.

4

49, 60 (2009). Defenses and counterclaims asserting a federal question do not satisfy this

5

requirement. Id.; Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987) (‘[I]t is now settled law

6

that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense.’). The federal

7

question must be presented by the plaintiff’s complaint as it stands at the time of removal.”)

8

(emphasis supplied).) Asserting new federal claims at this time does not provide federal

9

jurisdiction.

10

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED, as the case

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

was already remanded and the Court continues to lack subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of this

12

Court is ordered to forward a certified copy of this Order and Dkt. Nos. 8–10 to the Clerk of the

13

Contra Costa County Superior Court.

14

This Order terminates Dkt. No. 10 and this case remains closed.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18

Dated: December 10, 2012

_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2