County of Santa Clara et al v. Wang et al

Filing 35

ORDER DENYING #33 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 9/8/2020. (ejdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2020)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Case 5:20-cv-05823-EJD Document 35 Filed 09/08/20 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al.,

Case No. 5:20-cv-05823-EJD

Plaintiffs,
9
v.
10
11

KE “JASON” WANG, et al.,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
Re: Dkt. No. 33

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

On September 1, 2020, the Court issued an order remanding this case sua sponte. Dkt. No.

14

31 (“Remand Order”). In that Remand Order, the Court found that the State of California was the

15

real party in interest to this suit and that a state cannot be a party to a diversity action. Id. at 4.

16

Because no diversity jurisdiction existed and no other basis for removal was put forth, the Court

17

found it appropriate to remand sua sponte. Ibid; see 28 U.S.C.A. § 1447 (“If at any time before

18

final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be

19

remanded”). On September 3, 2020, Defendants filed a Motion for Leave to File a Motion for

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Reconsideration of the Remand Order. Dkt. No. 33 (“Motion”).
Federal law provides that “[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was
removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise,” with two exceptions that are not relevant here.
28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[t]his language has been universally
construed to preclude not only appellate review but also reconsideration by the district court.
Once 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); see also Musumeci v. Musumeci, No. 5:20-CV-00454-EJD, 2020

27
28

Case No.: 5:20-cv-05823-EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
1

Case 5:20-cv-05823-EJD Document 35 Filed 09/08/20 Page 2 of 2

1
2

WL 1139659, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2020).
This court lacks jurisdiction to reconsider its Remand Order. Respondent’s motion for

3

leave to file motion for reconsideration is DENIED. The clerk shall serve a copy of this order on

4

Respondent and shall transmit this order to the Santa Clara County Superior Court.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 8, 2020
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No.: 5:20-cv-05823-EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
2