Hodgens v. PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Ricky Hodgens, No. 2:21-cv-00716-KJM-JDP 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER 13 v. 14 PrimeSource Building Products, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 More than a year ago, defendant PrimeSource Building Products removed this action to 18 | this court based on its allegation that this court has jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness 19 | Act. See generally Not. Removal, ECF No. 1. The parties recently reported that they have 20 | reached an agreement to settle this case and a related case currently pending in California 21 | Superior Court. See Stip., ECF No. 15. They “agree that it would be proper” to remand this 22 | action to the state court “for purposes of seeking a single settlement approval.” /d. at 1. They 23 | also ask this court to order that if the state court does not approve their settlement agreement, then 24 | this action will “revert” to this court. See id. at 1-2. 25 The parties cite no authority under which a federal district court may remand an action, 26 | removed long ago, over which the district court has subject matter jurisdiction. Cf 28 U.S.C. 27 | § 1447(c) (“A motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect other than lack of subject 28 | matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal under 1 | section 1446(a).”); Quackenbush y. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 716 (1996) (“We have often 2 | acknowledged that federal courts have a strict duty to exercise the jurisdiction that is conferred 3 | upon them by Congress.”). Nor do they cite authority showing a federal district court may retain 4 | jurisdiction over a remanded action conditionally or partially such that the action may “revert” to 5 | federal court. Cf Seedman v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 6 | 1988) (per curiam) (“A remand order returns the case to the state courts and the federal court has 7 | no power to retrieve it.”). 8 The parties’ stipulated request (ECF No. 15) is denied without prejudice to renewal 9 | with authority, if any exists, showing this court may remand this action conditionally as 10 | stipulated. 1] IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 DATED: October 4, 2022. 13 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 45