At page 414 District court divestiture of jurisdiction after remand86 citing casesOnce a district court certifies a remand order to state court [on section 1447(c) grounds] it is divested of jurisdiction and can take no further action on the case.
- Micron Tech., Inc. v. Netlist, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00001 (D. Idaho May 20, 2025).(Once a district court certifies a remand order to state court it is divested of jurisdiction and can take no further action on the case.)
- Micron Tech., Inc. v. Netlist, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00081 (D. Idaho May 20, 2025).(Once a district court certifies a remand order to state court it is divested of jurisdiction and can take no further action on the case.)
- Amy Arvizu v. Fertility Centers of Orange Cnty. Reproductive Partners Med. Grp., Inc., No. 8:25-cv-00413 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2025).(This language [in 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (d)] has been universally construed to preclude not only appellate review but also reconsideration by the district court.)
- Roger Rojas v. TE Connectivity Corp., No. 8:24-cv-02681 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2024).(This language [in 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (d)] has been universally construed to preclude not only appellate review but also reconsideration by the district court.)
- (PC) Garcia v. Powell, No. 1:22-cv-00730 (E.D. Cal. May 30, 2023).(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.)
- Eriksson, LLC v. Loveland Prods., Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00703 (E.D. Cal. July 22, 2020).([A] second removal petition 28 based on the same grounds does not ‘reinvest’ the court’s jurisdiction.)
- Shapiro v. Logistec Usa Inc., 412 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 2005).published(Once a district court certifies a remand order to state court [on section 1447(c) grounds] it is divested of jurisdiction and can take no further action on the case.)
- Shapiro v. Logistec USA Inc., 412 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 2005).published(Once a district court certifies a remand order to state court [on section 1447(c) grounds] it is divested of jurisdiction and can take no further action on the case.)
- Gainey Ranch v. Kraft, No. 1 CA-CV 18-0179 (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2019).unpublished“this language in 1447(d) has been universally construed to preclude not only appellate review but also reconsideration by the district court.”
- Am. Freight Sys., Inc. v. Powell (In Re Am. Freight Sys., Inc.), 205 B.R. 290 (D. Kan. 1996).published([A]fter certification to the state court a federal court cannot vacate a remand order issued under section 1447(c).)
Show 76 more citing cases
- Cervantes, No. 1:26-cv-00135 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2026).Dist. of Cal., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988)).
- Lewis, No. 2:25-cv-01893 (D. Nev. July 23, 2026).“once a district court certifies a remand order 12 to state court it is divested of jurisdiction and can take no further action on the case”
- Gibbs, No. 3:26-cv-02736 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2026).(explaining “a second 3 removal petition based on the same grounds does not ‘reinvest’ the court’s jurisdiction)
- Hass, No. 3:25-cv-06018 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2026).Dist. of California, 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 24 1988).
- ATC Makena LLC v. Kaiama, No. 1:25-cv-00236 (D. Haw. June 24, 2025).(concluding that once a district court certifies a remand order based on § 1447(c), “it is divested of jurisdiction and can take no further action on the case)
- Hulbert v. Kwasnik, No. 2:25-cv-00013 (D. Mont. Apr. 30, 2025).Dist. of Cal., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988)).
- Energy Enhancement Sys., LLC v. Shurka, No. 2:25-cv-00633 (D. Nev. Apr. 17, 2025).(holding a district court lacks jurisdiction 20 where a defendant’s second petition for removal is based on the same grounds as the prior 21 removal)
- Truman Capital Holdings LLC v. Lyall, No. 2:24-cv-01425 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 3, 2025).Dist. of Cal., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988). 4 “Generally, federal jurisdiction ends once a case is remanded to state court.” 5 McFarland v. Cap.
- Hodgell v. Andersen Corp., No. 2:23-cv-01848 (W.D. Wash. May 2, 2024).Dist. 3 of California, 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (d).
- Taylor v. Zampella, No. 1:23-cv-08409 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2024).Dist. of Cal., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir.1988) (per curiam)).
- Gregory v. Palmer, No. 2:20-cv-01439 (D. Nev. Dec. 19, 2023).Dist. of 17|| California, 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988).
- Dempsey v. Raley's, No. 2:22-cv-01506 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2023).(holding a court could not vacate its 15 | prior erroneous remand order because the successive removal was based on the same grounds as 16 | the first and therefore was not reviewable)
- Dempsey v. Raley's, No. 2:22-cv-01507 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2023).(holding a court could not vacate its 15 | prior erroneous remand order because the successive removal was based on the same grounds as 16 | the first and therefore was not reviewable)
- Linton v. Axcess Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 3:23-cv-01832 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2023).Dist. of Cal., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (d) 25 (“An order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not 26 reviewable on appeal or otherwise . . . .”).
- Velocity Capital Grp. LLC v. Vyvue, LLC, No. 2:23-cv-00356 (D. Utah July 17, 2023).Dist. of Cal., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988); New Orleans Pub.
- Overnight Capital LLC v. Vyvue, LLC, No. 2:23-cv-00357 (D. Utah July 10, 2023).Dist. of Cal., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988); New Orleans Pub.
- Ceja v. Venture Dynamics Enter., Inc, No. 3:22-cv-00918 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2023).Dist. of California, 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988)).
- Felicia Stone v. J & M Sec., LLC, 55 F.4th 1150 (8th Cir. 2022).publishedDist. of Cal., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam).
- Christopher Kawata v. Me & Bros., No. 2:22-cv-07354 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2022).Of Cal., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam).
- Hodgens v. PrimeSource Bldg. Prods., Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00716 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2022).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 with…
- Christopher Kawata v. Me & Bros., No. 2:22-cv-05945 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2022).Of Cal., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988).
- Rsa-Tumon, LLC v. Sherif Philips, No. 21-16185 (9th Cir. July 18, 2022).unpublished(prohibition on the review of remand orders extends to the district court’s own ability to entertain a motion for reconsideration)
- Hernandez v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 2:21-cv-00357 (D. Ariz. Apr. 19, 2022).Dist. of Cali., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988). 2 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside Verdict is DENIED. 23 Dated this 19th day of April, 2022. 24 25 26 hes ida Do .
- Daurio v. Faust, No. 2:18-cv-03299 (D. Ariz. Feb. 4, 2022).Ct. for the Central Dist. of Cal., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th 22 Cir. 1988). 23 Therefore, the Court cannot grant Plaintiff the relief he seeks. 24 / / 25 / / 26 / / 27 / / 28 1 CONCLUSION 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Rule 59 Mot…
- Julie Mathis v. Brew Pr LLC, No. 20-55674 (9th Cir. May 21, 2021).unpublishedDist. of Cal., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam); Country Music, 991 F.3d at 1064.
- Cory v. Newfield Expl. Mid-Continent Inc, No. 5:19-cv-00221 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 9, 2020).Dist. of Cal., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam); New Orleans Pub.
- Noah Golden v. eWheels LLC, No. 2:20-cv-07044 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2020).Of Cal., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988).
- Rosenberg v. Shemiran Co., No. 1:20-cv-00229 (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2020).Dist. of Cal., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988)).
- Mozingo v. Japan Airlines Co., No. 3:20-cv-00583 (S.D. Cal. May 1, 2020).Cal., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988); Andersen 3 v. Schwan Food Co., No. CV 13-02208 JGB, 2014 WL 1266785 , at *4 (C.D.
- Salvador Neduelan v. Werner Enter., Inc., No. 5:20-cv-00290 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2020).Dist. of California, 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988). 5 “[O]nce a district court has remanded a case, a defendant generally may not 6 remove the case to federal court a second time.” Lodi Mem’l Hosp.
- Rosenberg v. Shemiran Co., No. 1:20-cv-02259 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 22, 2020).Dist. of Cal., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Lalondriz v. USA Networks, Inc., 68 F. Supp. 2d 285, 286 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (stating that under § 1447(d), “a district court may not review [its re…
- Markowitz v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., No. 3:19-cv-00655 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2019).Ct. (Empire of Am.), 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988), 1 upon which Plaintiff relies, 1s distinguishable, because it addresses successive notices of 2 ||removal rather than amendment under 28 U.S.C. §1653 to amend defective allegations of…
- Villalpando v. Sw. Airlines Co., No. 3:19-cv-02055 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2019).Cal., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988); Andersen 3 v. Schwan Food Co., No. CV 13-02208 JGB, 2014 WL 1266785 , at *4 (C.D.
- Erika Nolff v. Performance Food Grp. Inc, No. 2:19-cv-08874 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2019).Dist. of Cal., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988).
- Arizona ex rel. Brnovich v. Volkswagen AG, 193 F. Supp. 3d 1025 (D. Ariz. 2016).publishedDist. of California, 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988).
- Juan Perez v. Alta-Dena Certified Dairy, 647 F. App'x 682 (9th Cir. 2016).unpublishedDist. of Calif., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir.1988) (per curiam), “a defendant who fails in an attempt to remove on the initial pleadings can file a removal petition when subsequent pleadings or events reveal a new and different ground for r…
- Laura Flam v. Marshall Flam, 788 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2015).publishedDistrict of Cal., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir.1988), we have also recognized that the rule is not without exceptions.
- Leon v. Gordon Trucking, Inc., 76 F. Supp. 3d 1055 (C.D. Cal. 2014).published Dist. of Cal., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir.1988).
- Ballard v. Dist. of Columbia, 813 F. Supp. 2d 34 (D.D.C. 2012).published
- Earlene Polyak v. Frank Hulen Wilma Lesnansky, 898 F.2d 154 (6th Cir. 1990).unpublished
- J.O. & P.O. v. Alton Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. 11, 909 F.2d 267 (7th Cir. 1990).published
- Anchorage Assocs. v. Virgin Islands Bd. of Tax Review, 922 F.2d 168 (3d Cir. 1990).published
- Bender v. Mazda Motor Corp., 657 F.3d 1200 (11th Cir. 2011).published
- Michael Akins Betty Akins v. Ronald J. Rodriguez Am. Nuclear Insurers, Inc., 15 F.3d 883 (9th Cir. 1994).published
- In re Foster, 52 F.3d 343 (Fed. Cir. 1995).unpublished
- In re Katherine Susan Lowe, 102 F.3d 731 (4th Cir. 1996).published
- Jeffrey D. Brierly v. Alusuisse Flexible Packaging, Inc., 170 F.3d 583 (6th Cir. 1999).published
- Jeffrey D. Brierly v. Alusuisse Flexible Packaging, Inc., 184 F.3d 527 (6th Cir. 1999).published
- Mark B. Mitskovski v. Buffalo & Fort Erie Pub. Bridge Auth., 435 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2006).published
- Sawyer v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 847 F. Supp. 96 (N.D. Ill. 1994).published
- McManus v. Glassman's Wynnefield, Inc., 710 F. Supp. 1043 (E.D. Pa. 1989).published
- Hubbard v. Combustion Eng'g, Inc., 794 F. Supp. 221 (E.D. Mich. 1992).published
- Hughes v. Gen. Motors Corp., 764 F. Supp. 1231 (W.D. Mich. 1991).published
- Aetna U.S. Healthcare, Inc. v. Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft, 67 F. Supp. 2d 1242 (D. Kan. 1999).published
- Lalondriz v. USA Networks, Inc., 68 F. Supp. 2d 285 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).published
- Tipp v. AmSouth Bank, 89 F. Supp. 2d 1304 (S.D. Ala. 2000).published
- TKI, INC. v. Nichols Rsch. Corp., 191 F. Supp. 2d 1307 (M.D. Ala. 2002).published
- Maggio Enter., Inc. v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 132 F. Supp. 2d 930 (D. Colo. 2001).published
- Whiddon Farms, Inc. v. Delta & Pine Land Co., 103 F. Supp. 2d 1310 (S.D. Ala. 2000).published
- Consol. Doors, Inc. v. Mid-Am. Door Co., 120 F. Supp. 2d 759 (E.D. Wis. 2000).published
- Shields v. Washington Nat. Ins. Co., 375 F. Supp. 2d 1346 (M.D. Ala. 2005).published
- Maui Land & Pineapple Co. v. Occidental Chem. Corp., 24 F. Supp. 2d 1083 (D. Haw. 1998).published
- Disher v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., 486 F. Supp. 2d 790 (S.D. Ill. 2007).published
- Lowe v., No. 96-560 (4th Cir. Dec. 17, 1996).published
- Vogel & Cox v. U.S. Off. Prods., No. 99-1922 (6th Cir. July 25, 2001).published
- Rhoades v. Progressive Cas. Ins., 410 F. App'x 10 (9th Cir. 2010).unpublished
- Doan v. Loomis (In re Fort Dodge Creamery Co.), 117 B.R. 438 (N.D. Iowa 1990).published
- Homestead Ins. v. Casden Co., 234 F. App'x 434 (9th Cir. 2007).unpublished
- Washington State Bar Ass'n v. Keefe, 234 F. App'x 510 (9th Cir. 2007).unpublished
- Stanley v. Kelly, 758 F. Supp. 1487 (S.D. Fla. 1991).published
- Shoals T.V. & Appliance, Inc. v. Auto Owners Ins., 791 F. Supp. 283 (N.D. Ala. 1992).published
- J.O. v. Alton Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. 11, 909 F.2d 267 (7th Cir. 1990).published
- Gregory Vogel v. U.S. Off. Prods. Co. Navigant Int'l, 258 F.3d 509 (6th Cir. 2001).published
- Carol English v. James Taylor, 378 P.3d 1036 (Idaho 2016).published
- Vogel v. U.S. Off. Prods. Co., 258 F.3d 509 (6th Cir. 2001).published
- Lee v. Payne, No. 3:23-cv-00388 (D. Idaho Mar. 5, 2024).
At page 413 PER CURIAM: On July 7, 1986, Joseph Seedman filed this action in California Superior Court against multiple defendants alleging eight causes of action…1 citing case
- Velanta Monique Babbitt v. Dignity Health, No. 2:24-cv-09145 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2025).Dist. of Cal., 837 F.2d 413, 413 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Acad. of Country Music v. Cont’l Cas.
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, and Empire of America, a Federal Savings Association, Real Parties in Interest
On July 7, 1986, Joseph Seedman filed this action in California Superior Court against multiple defendants alleging eight causes of action including a federal RICO claim based primarily on breach of an agreement to buy certain assets. On October 6, 1986, defendants removed the complaint to federal court.
On November 6, 1986, the district court sua sponte remanded the case to state court on the ground that the removal petition was untimely. One month later, respondents filed a second removal petition[*414] claiming the earlier remand order was erroneous. The remand order had already been certified to the state court. Petitioner filed a motion for remand, but the court denied that motion, vacated its earlier remand order, and granted the second removal petition. The court concluded its initial order was based on a clerical error, and removal was proper.
Seedman then petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus claiming the district court lacked jurisdiction to vacate its earlier remand order. On July 7, 1987, this panel denied the writ. Seedman subsequently filed a motion for rehearing. We now grant petitioner’s motion for rehearing and grant the writ.
28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) requires a district court to remand a case to state court when it determines the case was improvidently removed. Remand orders based on section 1447(c) are unreviewable on “appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d).
This language has been universally construed to preclude not only appellate review but also reconsideration by the district court. Once a district court certifies a remand order to state court it is divested of jurisdiction and can take no further action on the case. See New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Majoue, 802 F.2d 166, 167 (5th Cir.1986) (per curiam); Pelleport Investors, Inc. v. Budco Quality Theatres, Inc., 741 F.2d 273, 279 n. 3 (9th Cir.1984); Three J Farms, Inc. v. Alton Box Board Co., 609 F.2d 112, 115 (4th Cir.1979); Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Santiago Plaza, 598 F.2d 634, 636 (1st Cir.1979) (per curiam); 14A C. Wright, A. Miller, E. Cooper, Federal Practice & Proc. § 3739, at 589 (1985).
Contrary to respondent’s position, a second removal petition based on the same grounds does not “reinvest” the court’s jurisdiction. See Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., 598 F.2d at 636. A remand order returns the case to the state courts and the federal court has no power to retrieve it. As the statute makes clear, if the remand order is based on section 1447(c), a district court has no power to correct or vacate it. Id.
Respondent argues that our decision in Buey v. Nevada Const. Co., 125 F.2d 213 (9th Cir.1942) allows a district court to correct erroneous remand orders. Buey held only that a court may correct an error before the order is certified to the state court. We stated in Buey that it was doubtful a court could vacate a remand order after certification. Id. at 217-18. We now so hold: after certification to the state court a federal court cannot vacate a remand order issued under section 1447(c).
Relying on Thermtron Prods., Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 96 S.Ct. 584, 46 L.Ed.2d 542 (1976), respondent argues this case was not remanded pursuant to section 1447(c) and is therefore reviewable. In Thermtron, the Court held that section 1447(d) did not preclude review of remand orders “issued on grounds not authorized by § 1447(c).” Id. at 343, 96 S.Ct. at 589. Here the court’s order was based on § 1447(c) since the court determined that the removal had been improvidently granted because the petition was untimely. See Clorox Co. v. United States District Court, 779 F.2d 517, 520 (9th Cir.1985); Wilkins v. Rogers, 581 F.2d 399, 403 (4th Cir.1978). This is true regardless of whether the order was premised on a clerical error.
Mandamus is reserved for extraordinary circumstances. See Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 2124, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). Such circumstances are present here. Petitioner has no other avenue of relief; unless the writ issues he will be prejudiced in a way not correctable on appeal since he will have been forced to endure proceedings in a court that lacks jurisdiction; the district’s order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law since the court had no jurisdiction to vacate its earlier remand order. See Bauman v. United States District Court, 557 F.2d 650, 654-55 (9th Cir.1977).
The writ is granted. The district court shall remand this case to the California state court.