Bassi v. Krochina, et al

Filing 21

ORDER denying 18 Motion for Reconsideration Re: 16 Order. So Ordered by Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.(dae)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Benjamin Bassi, Trustee of the
Marsha A. Bassi Revocable Trust
v.

Civil No. 12-cv-39-JD

Christopher John Krochina
O R D E R
Christopher John Krochina moves for reconsideration of the
court’s order remanding this case to state court.

Krochina

argues that the court erred in determining that subject matter
jurisdiction is lacking.

Benjamin Bassi objects to the motion

for reconsideration, contending that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1447(d) a remand order based on a lack of subject matter
jurisdiction cannot be reconsidered.

Krochina filed a reply but

did not address the effect of § 1447(d).
Section 1447(d) bars review of remand orders for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction “on appeal or otherwise,” except in
cases removed based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442 and 1443.1

Courts have

interpreted § 1447(d) to bar review by reconsideration as well as

1

Despite the statutory prohibition against review of remand
orders, based on 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), the Supreme Court has
created numerous exceptions to the rule. See Osborn v. Haley,
549 U.S. 225, 264-65 (2007) (J. Scalia dissenting). None of the
exceptions applies in this case.

on appeal.

See Bender v. Mazda Motor Corp., 657 F.3d 1200, 1203

(11th Cir. 2011) (citing cases); Shapiro v. Logistec USA, Inc.,
412 F.3d 307, 311-12 (2d Cir. 2005) (citing cases); GautierFigueroa v. Bristol-Myers Squibb P.R., Inc., --- F. Supp. 2d ---,
2012 WL 639290, at *20 (D.P.R. Feb. 29, 2012).

Therefore, the

remand order in this case is not reviewable for purposes of
reconsideration.

Cok v. Family Court of R.I., 985 F.3d 32, 34

(1st Cir. 1993).
Bassi also asked for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs
incurred in responding to Krochina’s motion for reconsideration.
The court will not award fees or costs at this time.

However,

Krochina is now on notice of the effect of § 1447(d) for purposes
of future filings.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motion for
reconsideration (document no. 18) is denied.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.
Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.
United States District Judge
June 18, 2012
cc:

Patricia M. Panciocco, Esq.
Jennifer L. Parent, Esq.
Christopher John Krochina, pro se
2