Opinion
2:24-cv-01579-KJM-AC
08-05-2024
Xiaoyan Fang, Plaintiff, v. Jacqueline Coleman, Defendant.
ORDER
Defendant Jacqueline Coleman has filed a “First Amended Notice of Removal,” Am. Rem., ECF No. 5, and a declaration in support of the notice, Coleman Decl., ECF No. 4. This case was originally removed from Sacramento County Superior Court. See Notice of Rem., ECF No. 1. The court subsequently remanded the case to the Sacramento County Court, denied Ms. Coleman's motion to proceed in forma pauperis as moot and closed the case. See Order, ECF No. 3. The district court generally may not review or reconsider remands for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Seedman v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. Cal., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988); Thermatron Prods., Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 346-48 (1976) abrogated on other grounds by Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706 (1996). The Ninth Circuit has determined that “[o]nce a district court certifies a remand order to state court it is divested of jurisdiction and can take no further action on the case.” Seedman, 837 F.2d at 414. Because the case is closed, the court denies Ms. Coleman's request for removal for lack ofjurisdiction.
This order resolves ECF No. 5.
IT IS SO ORDERED.