ESA Management, LLC v. Kaler
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
Defendant Timothy Kaler moved to stay the district court's order remanding the case to state court pending appeal. The court denied the motion, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the motion because the remand order is not reviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d).
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to stay remand order pending appeal denied“The Court lacks jurisdiction over this case and accordingly DENIES Defendant’s motion for stay.” | agree with court The court correctly applied 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), which provides that an order remanding a case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise. Because the remand was based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction (as indicated by the citation to § 1447(c) and the history of prior dismissals on jurisdictional grounds), the district court lacks jurisdiction to stay the remand pending an appeal that is statutorily barred. The denial is consistent with the statutory text and prior Ninth Circuit precedent. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise but legally sound. It correctly identifies the statutory bar on review under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) and applies it to the specific facts of the case (remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). The court’s reliance on the prior Ninth Circuit dismissals reinforces the conclusion that the jurisdictional defect is clear and unreviewable. No significant legal arguments or authorities are omitted that would change the outcome.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ESA MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No.: 24-CV-01755-CAB-SBC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. [ECF No. 8] 14 TIMOTHY KALER, 15 Defendant. 16 17 After the Court ordered remand, [ECF No. 7], Defendant Timothy Kaler filed a 18 motion to stay that order pending appeal. [ECF No. 8.] As noted in the Court’s prior order, 19 Defendant Kaler has removed his case three times, has had his case remanded each time, 20 and has attempted two appeals that resulted in dismissals on jurisdictional grounds. See 21 ESA Mgmt., LLC v. Kaler, No. 3:23-CV-01324-RBM-MMP, 2023 WL 4932088, at *3 22 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2023), appeal dismissed, No. 23-55694, 2023 WL 7401409 (9th Cir. 23 Sept. 28, 2023) (“Kaler I”); ESA Mgmt., LLC v. Kaler, No. 3:24-CV-00175-RBM-MMP, 24 2024 WL 3542584, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 5, 2024), appeal dismissed, No. 24-3590, 2024 25 WL 3548314 (9th Cir. June 20, 2024) (“Kaler II”). 26 This case has been remanded to the state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). As 27 two appellate panels have already confirmed, there is no applicable review exception that 28 allows for any further adjudication of Defendant’s case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (order 1 ||remanding a removed action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant 2 || to § 1447(c) “is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise’). The Court lacks jurisdiction over 3 || this case and accordingly DENIES Defendant’s motion for stay. [ECF No. 8.] No further 4 || filings will be accepted. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 || Dated: October 22, 2024 € 9 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28