Helmer v. Weaver

E.D. Louisiana

Helmer v. Weaver

123 F. Supp. 2d 1010, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18806, 2000 WL 1852437

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana

DecidedDecember 15, 2000

DocketCiv.A. 00-2892

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 123 F. Supp. 2d 1010 (Helmer v. Weaver) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Helmer v. Weaver, 123 F. Supp. 2d 1010, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18806, 2000 WL 1852437 (E.D. La. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

BARBIER, District Judge.

Before the Court is the Motion to Reconsider (Rec.Doc. 6), filed by defendant and counter-plaintiff, Joshua Weaver. Plaintiff and counter-defendant, Georgia Helmer, opposes the motion. The motion is set for hearing on December 20, 2000, and Helmer has requested oral argument.

Upon review of this matter, the Court has determined that it lacks jurisdiction and therefore may not consider the Motion to Reconsider. Following removal of this matter to this court, plaintiff Helmer filed a Motion to Remand, based on her argument that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking. That motion was set for hearing on November 22, 2000, and accordingly, defendant’s opposition was due on November 14, 2000. On November 17, 2000, having received no opposition, and having determined that the Motion to Remand was well-founded, the motion was granted, remanding this matter to state court. Subsequently, the Court received a late-filed opposition, received in the clerk’s office on November 16, 2000 (two days late), and in chambers, within a day or so after that. No separate copy had been routed to chambers by plaintiff, as required by local rule. Thus, the Court did not learn of plaintiffs opposition until after it had ruled on the motion.

An order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (emphasis added). “The Court’s ability to reconsider is limited to discretionary remand orders, not orders based upon lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Asunto v. Shoup, 2000 WL 1742055 (E.D.La.2000), citing Thompson v. Radosta, 906 F.Supp. 367 (E.D.La.1995). In fact, “[n]ot only may the order not be appealed, but the district court itself is divested of jurisdiction to reconsider the matter. Thus, even if it later decides the order was erroneous, a remand order cannot be vacated even by the district court.” New Orleans Public Service v. Majoue, 802 F.2d 166, 167 (5th Cir.1986); see also, Heaton v. Monogram Credit Card Bank of Georgia, 231 F.3d 994, 997 (5th Cir.2000). 1 Because this matter was remanded based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, this Court lacks jurisdiction to reconsider its prior order. Accordingly;

IT IS ORDERED that defendant’s Motion to Reconsider (Rec.Doc. 6) should be and is hereby DENIED.

1

. The Court is aware that the prior order granting the motion to remand as unopposed contained language suggesting that a motion to reconsider could be filed within 30 days. That language is routinely included in orders granting motions as unopposed; however, its inclusion cannot negate the fact that in this case, the Court has simply been divested of jurisdiction to reconsider a motion which it might otherwise reconsider.

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

BARBIER, District Judge.

Before the Court is the Motion to Reconsider (Rec.Doc. 6), filed by defendant and counter-plaintiff, Joshua Weaver. Plaintiff and counter-defendant, Georgia Helmer, opposes the motion. The motion is set for hearing on December 20, 2000, and Helmer has requested oral argument.

Upon review of this matter, the Court has determined that it lacks jurisdiction and therefore may not consider the Motion to Reconsider. Following removal of this matter to this court, plaintiff Helmer filed a Motion to Remand, based on her argument that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking. That motion was set for hearing on November 22, 2000, and accordingly, defendant’s opposition was due on November 14, 2000. On November 17, 2000, having received no opposition, and having determined that the Motion to Remand was well-founded, the motion was granted, remanding this matter to state court. Subsequently, the Court received a late-filed opposition, received in the clerk’s office on November 16, 2000 (two days late), and in chambers, within a day or so after that. No separate copy had been routed to chambers by plaintiff, as required by local rule. Thus, the Court did not learn of plaintiffs opposition until after it had ruled on the motion.

An order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (emphasis added). “The Court’s ability to reconsider is limited to discretionary remand orders, not orders based upon lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Asunto v. Shoup, 2000 WL 1742055 (E.D.La.2000), citing Thompson v. Radosta, 906 F.Supp. 367 (E.D.La.1995). In fact, “[n]ot only may the order not be appealed, but the district court itself is divested of jurisdiction to reconsider the matter. Thus, even if it later decides the order was erroneous, a remand order cannot be vacated even by the district court.” New Orleans Public Service v. Majoue, 802 F.2d 166, 167 (5th Cir.1986); see also, Heaton v. Monogram Credit Card Bank of Georgia, 231 F.3d 994, 997 (5th Cir.2000). 1 Because this matter was remanded based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, this Court lacks jurisdiction to reconsider its prior order. Accordingly;

IT IS ORDERED that defendant’s Motion to Reconsider (Rec.Doc. 6) should be and is hereby DENIED.

1

. The Court is aware that the prior order granting the motion to remand as unopposed contained language suggesting that a motion to reconsider could be filed within 30 days. That language is routinely included in orders granting motions as unopposed; however, its inclusion cannot negate the fact that in this case, the Court has simply been divested of jurisdiction to reconsider a motion which it might otherwise reconsider.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 F. Supp. 2d 1010, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18806, 2000 WL 1852437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/helmer-v-weaver-laed-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack