Ceja v. Venture Dynamics Enterprises, Inc

[5] 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [8] 9 NOE PONCE CEJA, Case No.: 22-cv-0918-L-AHG 10 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION 11 v. TO REMAND 12 VENTURE DYNAMICS [ECF No. 28] ENTERPRISES, INC., and DOES 1–100, [13] Defendants. [15] Pending before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to remand to state court. [16] (ECF No. 28.) The instant action was originally filed in the Superior Court of California [17] and was removed on June 23, 2022. (Id. at 3.) The parties attended mediation on [18] January 31, 2023. (Id.) The parties reached a tentative settlement that includes an [19] agreement to remand this matter back to state court for approval. (Id.) The parties now [20] request that this Court remand the present case and stay all proceedings in this matter [21] pending settlement approval. (Id. at 4.) The parties also request that in the event the [22] settlement is not approved by the state court, Defendant may remove the action back to [23] federal court and the parties be placed in the respective litigation status as of the date the [24] parties executed the settlement agreement. (Id.) [25] “[O]nce a district court certifies a remand order to state court it is divested of [26] jurisdiction and can take no further action on the case.” Acad. of Country Music v. Cont'l [27] Cas. Co., 991 F.3d 1059, 1064 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Seedman v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for [28] 1 || Cent. Dist. of California, 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988)). See generally United States 2 || v. Rice, 327 U.S. 742 (1946). Therefore, upon granting the parties’ joint motion to 3 ||remand the Court loses the ability to issue a stay in the proceedings or retain future 4 ||jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court declines to grant the parties’ requests and the joint 5 motion is DENIED. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. [7] 8 || Dated: March 15, 2023 pee ep? 10 H . James Lorenz, United States District Judge