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)

Download PDF
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

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?