Tailo v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc.

Filing 19

ORDER denying 18 --motion for reconsideration of 16 --order of remand. Signed by Judge Steven D. Merryday on 11/15/2012. (BK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
LINDA TAILO,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO.: 8:12-cv-1649-T-23AEP

RUBY TUESDAY, INC.,
Defendant.
____________________________________/

ORDER
For failure to invoke subject matter jurisdiction, a November 9, 2012, order
(Doc. 16) remands this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) to the Circuit Court for Polk
County, Florida. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., moves (Doc. 18) to reconsider.
Effective immediately upon the issuance of the remand order, the action
returns to, and immediately resides in, state court. No action in which to reconsider
remand remains in federal court. Bender v. Mazda Motor Corp., 657 F.3d 1200, 1203
(11th Cir. 2011) (citing Brierly v. Alusuisse Flexible Packaging, Inc., 184 F.3d 527, 531
(6th Cir. 1999) (“[A] remand to state court divests a district court of jurisdiction such
that it may not take any further action on the case.”)).
Also, an order remanding a case under Section 1447(c) “is not reviewable
onappeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); Thermtron Products, Inc. v.

Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336 (1976). Thus, Section 1447(d) bars review in either the
district or the appellate court of the earlier remand. Bender v. Mazda Motor Corp., 657
F.3d 1200, 1203 (11th Cir. 2011); Harris v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama, Inc., 951
F.2d 325, 330 (11th Cir. 1992) (“Unquestionably, [Section] 1447(d) not only
forecloses appellate review but also bars reconsideration by the district court of its
own remand order.”). The motion (Doc. 18) is DENIED.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on November 15, 2012.

-2-