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)

Download PDF
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

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?