DIBENEDETTO et al v. THE STOP & SHOP SUPERMARKET COMPANY, LLC et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 10 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Michael A. Shipp on 5/7/2015. (mmh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ANTHONY DIBENEDETTO, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 14-7511 (MAS) (TJB)
v.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
THE STOP & SHOP SUPERMARKET
COMPANY LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants The Stop & Shop Supermarket
Company LLC ("Stop & Shop") and Kelly Robicheau's (collectively, "Defendants") motion for
reconsideration, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.l(i), of the Court's December 23, 2014 Order
(ECF No. 6), which remanded the action to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). (ECF
No. 10.) On December 1, 2014, Stop & Shop removed the case to federal court. (ECF No. 1.)
Three days later, Plaintiffs filed correspondence (ECF No. 3) asserting that the matter should be
remanded. See § 1447(c) ("A motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect other than
lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of
removal .... "). On December 9, 2014, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why the action
should not be remanded for failure to comply with removal procedures or for lack of jurisdiction.
(ECF No. 5.) After reviewing Stop & Shop's response to the Court's Order to Show Cause, the
Court remanded the action pursuant to § 1447(c), for failure to comply with the removal
procedures set forth in§ 1446(b)(2)(a). (ECF No. 8.)
Defendants' motion for reconsideration is denied. "The general rule is that a district
court loses jurisdiction over a case once it has completed the remand by sending a certified copy

of the remand order to the state court." Trans Penn Wax Corp. v. McCandless, 50 F.3d 217, 225
(3d Cir. 1995). Accordingly, the Court may not reconsider its decision. See id. Since the Court
had already mailed a certified copy of the remand order to the state court at the time Defendants
filed the instant motion, and no other exception applies, the Court lacks jurisdiction to reconsider
its remand decision.
According! y, for the reasons set forth above, and other good cause shown,

IT IS on this

Z

q

day of May 2015, ORDERED that Defendants' motion for

reconsideration (ECF No. 10) is DENIED.

MICHAEL A. Smn>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2