Opinion
2:21-cv-00716-KJM-JDP
10-04-2022
Ricky Hodgens, Plaintiffs, v. PrimeSource Building Products, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
More than a year ago, defendant PrimeSource Building Products removed this action to this court based on its allegation that this court has jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. See generally Not. Removal, ECF No. 1. The parties recently reported that they have reached an agreement to settle this case and a related case currently pending in California Superior Court. See Stip., ECF No. 15. They “agree that it would be proper” to remand this action to the state court “for purposes of seeking a single settlement approval.” Id. at 1. They also ask this court to order that if the state court does not approve their settlement agreement, then this action will “revert” to this court. See id. at 1-2.
The parties cite no authority under which a federal district court may remand an action, removed long ago, over which the district court has subject matter jurisdiction. Cf. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“A motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal under section 1446(a).”); Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 716 (1996) (“We have often acknowledged that federal courts have a strict duty to exercise the jurisdiction that is conferred upon them by Congress.”). Nor do they cite authority showing a federal district court may retain jurisdiction over a remanded action conditionally or partially such that the action may “revert” to federal court. Cf. Seedman v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (“A remand order returns the case to the state courts and the federal court has no power to retrieve it.”).
The parties' stipulated request (ECF No. 15) is denied without prejudice to renewal with authority, if any exists, showing this court may remand this action conditionally as stipulated.
IT IS SO ORDERED.