Ceja v. Venture Dynamics Enterprises, Inc

S.D. California

Ceja v. Venture Dynamics Enterprises, Inc

DecidedMarch 15, 2023

Docket3:22-cv-00918

StatusUnknown

This text of Ceja v. Venture Dynamics Enterprises, Inc (Ceja v. Venture Dynamics Enterprises, Inc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ceja v. Venture Dynamics Enterprises, Inc, (S.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 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. 14

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

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 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. 14

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

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ceja v. Venture Dynamics Enterprises, Inc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ceja-v-venture-dynamics-enterprises-inc-casd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack