Cherry v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company
Filing
10
ORDER denying #9 Motion to Vacate. Signed by Judge Charles Goodwin on 01/27/2025. (jb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ASHLEY CHERRY,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY )
COMPANY,
)
)
Defendant.
)
Case No. CIV-24-1285-G
ORDER
Plaintiff Ashley Cherry initiated this action in the District Court of Oklahoma
County, bringing a claim for breach of contract under Oklahoma law against Defendant
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company. See Pet. (Doc. No. 1-1). On December 9, 2024,
Defendant removed the case to this Court on the basis of federal diversity jurisdiction.
On December 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 6). On
January 15, 2025, the Court—noting that no response had been filed and considering the
record presented, including in particular Plaintiff’s express allegations regarding the
amount in controversy—granted Plaintiff’s Motion.
Accordingly, the matter was
remanded to the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.
Now before the Court is Defendant’s unopposed Motion to Vacate (Doc. No. 9).
Defendant states—and the Court has confirmed—that on January 2, 2025, which was the
deadline for Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, counsel for Defendant
had sent an email to chambers staff advising that a settlement had been reached and
requesting that an administrative closing order (“ACO”) be entered. See id. Neither party
contacted the Court between January 2 and January 15, 2025, to ask about the absence of
an ACO. Citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) and (b), Defendant now requests
that the Court vacate the January 15, 2025 Order of Remand. See id.
While regretful of the circumstances, the Court cannot grant the relief requested.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), “[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which
it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Federal
appellate courts and fellow district courts within the Tenth Circuit consistently hold that
this statute prevents them from vacating or reconsidering their orders to remand. StarkRomero v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Co., 763 F. Supp. 2d 1231, 1251-53 (D.N.M. 2011) (citing
cases); see, e.g., In re La Providencia Dev. Corp., 406 F.2d 251, 253 (1st Cir. 1969)
(“[N]othing could be more inclusive than the phrase ‘on appeal or otherwise.’ The district
court has one shot, right or wrong.”). Accordingly, the Court is constrained to deny relief.
CONCLUSION
Defendant’s Motion to Vacate (Doc. No. 9) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of January, 2025.
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?