Rae et al v. Brew et al

Filing 18

ORDER denying 17 Motion to Vacate. No further motions of this type will be considered and should not be filed. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 1/3/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (ejdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2014)

1
2
3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6

BARBARA THOMEN, et. al.,

CASE NO. 5:13-cv-05762 EJD
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO VACATE

7
Plaintiff(s),
8
9

v.
MARCO BREW, et. al.,

[Docket Item No(s). 17]

10

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Defendant(s).
/

11
12

As review of the order remanding this action to the superior court is barred by 28 U.S.C. §

13

1447(d), Defendants’ Motion to Vacate (Docket Item No. 17) is DENIED. Seedman v. C.D. Cal.,

14

837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988) (explaining that the § 1447(d) review bar “has been universally

15

construed to preclude not only appellate review but also reconsideration by the district court.”).

16

In addition, Defendants’ request for random reassignment to a district judge is DENIED as

17

this court can take no further action in this matter. See id. (“Once a district court certifies a remand

18

order to state court it is divested of jurisdiction and can take no further action on the case.”).1

19

No further motions of this type will be considered and should not be filed.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: January 3, 2014
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

1

Such relief would be unnecessary in any event because the undersigned district judge issued
the remand order after this case was randomly reassigned from the magistrate judge. See Docket
Item No. 11.
1
CASE NO. 5:13-cv-05762 EJD
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO VACATE