Hender v. American Directions Workforce ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Alexandra Hender, No. 2:19-cv-0195 1-KJM-DMC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 Vv. 14 American Directions Workforce LLC, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Defendants American Directions Workforce LLC and American Directions Group, Inc. 18 | move for reconsideration of this court’s previous order remanding this matter to Shasta County 19 | Superior Court. As explained below, the court denies the motion for lack of jurisdiction. 20 Plaintiff Alexandra Hender brought this putative class action in Shasta County Superior 21 | Court, alleging several violations of the California Labor Code. See generally Compl., Notice of 22 | Removal Ex. B, ECF No. 1-2. Defendants removed, asserting jurisdiction under the Class Action 23 | Fairness Act (CAFA). Not. Of Removal § 8, ECF No. 1; see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(2)(A) & 24 | (d)(5). Hender moved to remand. Mot. to Remand, ECF No. 9. This court remanded the action, 25 | finding the amount in controversy, $4,820,465, insufficient to meet the jurisdictional minimum. 26 | Prev. Order at 17, ECF No. 20; see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) (CAFA jurisdiction requires amount 27 | in controversy exceeding $5 million). Defendants now move for reconsideration of the remand 28 | //// 1 order, Mot. for Recons., ECF No. 22, and the reconsideration question has been fully briefed, 2 Opp’n, ECF No. 23; Reply, ECF No. 25. 3 Defendants allege the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Salter v. Quality Carriers, Inc., 4 supports its motion for reconsideration. 974 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2020). Before considering the 5 merits of defendants’ motion, however, the court must address a threshold issue neither party 6 raises: whether this court has jurisdiction to reconsider a CAFA remand order. 7 The district court generally may not review or reconsider remands for lack of subject 8 matter jurisdiction. See Seedman v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. Cal., 837 F2d. 413, 414 (9th Cir. 9 1988); Thermatron Prods., Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 346–48 (1976) abrogated on 10 other grounds by Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706 (1996). The Ninth Circuit has 11 determined that “[o]nce a district court certifies a remand order to state court it is divested of 12 jurisdiction and can take no further action on the case.” Seedman, 837 F.2d at 414. Parties, 13 however, may appeal remands of cases removed under CAFA by virtue of a statutory exception 14 to the rule. See 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c); Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 15 U.S. 81, 85–86 (2014). But the Ninth Circuit has not determined district courts have jurisdiction 16 to reconsider remand orders under § 1453(c) or otherwise. Neither have other Circuits, except the 17 Seventh. See Wingo v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 13-3097, 2013 WL 3872199, at *2 18 (W.D. Mo. July 25, 2013) (noting no Eighth Circuit authority on point, and following Seventh 19 Circuit as persuasive). 20 District courts are split on whether they have jurisdiction to reconsider their own remand 21 orders in CAFA cases. In Wingo, the district court was persuaded that reconsideration was “a 22 proper exercise of discretion,” relying on Seventh Circuit authority deeming an appeal premature 23 without a prior request for reconsideration below. See id. (citations omitted). Another district 24 court denied reconsideration of a prior remand order, reasoning that the CAFA statute expressly 25 provides for appellate review of remand orders but makes no provision for reconsideration by a 26 district court. Miller v. Volkswagen Am., Inc., No. 11-2377, 2012 WL 13019525, at *1 (N.D. 27 Ohio Mar. 15, 2012); cf. Migis v. AutoZone, Inc., No. 08-1394, 2009 WL 690627, at *1 (D. Or. 28 Mar. 6, 2009) (denying for lack of jurisdiction a motion to stay action after remand to state court). 1 Still other district courts have broadly construed the CAFA exception to “provide continuing 2 jurisdiction to reopen a previously remanded case,” and viewed a motion for reconsideration as a 3 proper alternative to appeal of a remand order. Perez-Reyes v. Nat’l Distrib. Ctrs., LLC, No. 17- 4 2434, 2018 WL 7077183, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2018); see, e.g., Manier v. Medtech Prods., 5 Inc., 29 F. Supp. 3d 1284, 1286–87 (S.D. Cal. 2014) (district court could consider motion to stay 6 after remand, because § 1453 created appellate jurisdiction for remand orders); Baron v. Johnson 7 & Johnson, No. 14-1531, 2014 WL 7272229, at *2–3 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2014) (finding 8 continuing jurisdiction to reconsider CAFA remand in light of § 1453’s exception to general rule 9 that remand orders not appealable); Badeen v. PAR, Inc., No. 19-10532, 2020 WL 2573178, at *1 10 (E.D. Mich. May 21, 2020) (concluding court retained jurisdiction to consider defense motion for 11 reconsideration because “CAFA exception . . . provide[s] continuing jurisdiction to reopen a 12 previously remanded case.”). 13 Previously, in LaCasse v. USANA Health Sciences, Inc., this court found it lacked 14 jurisdiction to grant a motion to stay a CAFA remand pending appeal, reasoning that § 1453(c) 15 provides only for appellate jurisdiction to review remands to state court. No. 20-01186, 2021 WL 16 877643, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2021) (citing Seedman, 837 F.2d at 414). “[A] district [court] 17 may take no action post-remand” especially where the court has already determined it lacks 18 subject matter jurisdiction, as it has here and as in LaCasse. 2021 WL 877643, at *2 (citing 19 Seedman, 837 F.2d at 414). If a district court lacks jurisdiction to decide a motion to stay pending 20 appeal of the remand, it follows that it lacks jurisdiction to reconsider the remand in the first 21 instance as well. 22 The court denies the motion for reconsideration for lack of jurisdiction. 23 This order resolves ECF No. 22. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 DATED: June 22, 2021.