(PC) Garcia v. Powell ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 URIEL GARCIA, Case No. 1:22-cv-00730-JLT-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 13 v. (Doc. 23) 14 K. POWELL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On January 12, 2023, the Court adopted findings and recommendations to remand this 18 action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the removed complaint stated only claims 19 for “general negligence.” (Docs. 11, 22.) The Court rejected Plaintiff’s attempt to demonstrate the 20 existence of federal causes of action by way of referencing a proposed amended complaint, 21 concluding that the proposed amended complaint “does not in any way show that Plaintiff’s [then 22 operative] complaint included federal claims. Instead, it appears to be largely based on new 23 factual allegations.” (Doc. 22 at 2.) The Court remanded the action to Kings County Superior 24 Court and directed the Clerk of Court to “take the necessary action to remand this case to Kings 25 County Superior Court and to close the case.” (Doc. 22.) 26 On May 5, 2023, Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration under Local Rule 230(j). 27 (Doc. 23.) Defendants ask for reconsideration because one of the bases for the remand decision 28 articulated in the findings and recommendations was that “even if [Plaintiff] intended to [bring 1 | federal claims], leave to amend would be futile because any such federal claims would be barred 2 | by res judicata and/or the prohibition against bringing duplicative claims,” (Doc. 11 at 2.) This 3 || was because—at least at that time—Plaintiff had already pursued similar claims in Garcia v. 4 | Powell (“Garcia I’), 1:19-cv-01631-ADA-CDB (PC), which had been dismissed for failure to 5 | state aclaim. (Doc. 11 at 6-7.) However, as Defendants point out in their motion for 6 || reconsideration, the Ninth Circuit recently reversed the district court’s judgment in Garcia I and 7 | remanded for further proceedings. (See Doc. 23-1 at 2; Garcia I, Doc. No. 13.) Based on this new 8 | fact, which was not available at the time the case was remanded, Defendants argue that the Court 9 | should reconsider its remand order in this case. (/d. at 5-6.) Defendants contend reconsideration 10 | is warranted in part because “[h]aving two nearly identical cases has the potential to result in 11 | inconsistent findings and a waste of judicial resources.” (/d. at 5). 12 Though Defendants argue why the remand order should be reconsidered, Defendants do 13 | not make any arguments regarding the Court’s authority to reconsider a remand order where the 14 | Court found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Courts have held that, at least in the present 15 | situation, a remand order may not be reconsidered. See, e.g., Seedman v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. 16 | Dist. of Cal., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (Oth Cir. 1988) (“Once a district court certifies a remand order to 17 | state court [based on 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) it is divested of jurisdiction and can take no further 18 || action on the case.”); Hender v. Am. Directions Workforce LLC, 2021 WL 2577030, at *1 (E.D. 19 | Cal. June 23, 2021) (“The district court generally may not review or reconsider remands for lack 20 | of subject matter jurisdiction.”); 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (“An order remanding a case to the State 21 | court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise, except that an order 22 || remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed pursuant to section 1442 or 1443 23 | of this title shall be reviewable by appeal or otherwise.”). Accordingly, based on the foregoing, 24 | the Court ORDERS that Defendants’ motion for reconsideration (Doc. 22) is DENIED. 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _May 26, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28