Opinion
CIVIL 22-00102 HG-KJM
06-23-2022
CONTINENTAL PACIFIC, LLC, Plaintiff, v. VANCE PHILLIP DUBUCLET; PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES LLC; DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10; BYVW EXCHANGE SERVICES, LLC; FIRST AMERICAN TITLE GUARANTEE CO.; HAWAII ELECTRIC LIGHT CO.; HENRY CORREA, JR.; PETER K. KUBOTA, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT VANCE PHILLIP DUBUCLET'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF NO. 29)
On May 31, 2022, the Court issued an ORDER ADOPTING, IN PART, THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO: (1) GRANT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND CASE TO STATE COURT; AND (2) DENY DEFENDANT'S SECOND APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS AND OVERRULING DEFENDANT VANCE PHILLIP DUBUCLET'S OBJECTIONS (ECF No. 23).
Also on May 31, 2022, the case was remanded to the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit, State of Hawaii, for further proceedings. (ECF No. 24).
On June 17, 2022, Defendant Vance Phillip DuBuclet filed a Motion requesting that the District Court reconsider its May 31, 2022 Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. (ECF No. 29).
The District Court may not review or reconsider an order remanding a case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Seedman v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. Cal., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained that “[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 [lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §] 1447(c), a district court has no power to correct or vacate it. Id.. Once the case is remanded to state court, the federal court is divested of jurisdiction and is precluded from reconsidering its order. Id.; see Hunt v. City of Los Angeles, 2021 WL 4772812, *3 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2021).
The Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Defendant DuBuclet's June 17, 2022 Motion for Reconsideration. The June 17, 2022 Motion (ECF No. 29) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.