Michael Hass v. Flowers Bakeries Sales of Norcal, LLC, et al.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 13, 2026
• Docket: 3:25-cv-06018
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MICHAEL HASS, Case No. 25-cv-06018-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: MOTION TO CERTIFY 9 v. INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

10 FLOWERS BAKERIES SALES OF Re: Dkt. No. 34 NORCAL, LLC, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 On November 26, 2025, the Court remanded this case to state court. (Dkt. No. 32.)1 The 14 Court mailed certified copies of the docket and Order to the Humbold Superior Court on 15 December 5, 2025. (Dkt. No. 33.) Nearly two weeks later, Defendant moved to certify the 16 Court’s November 26, 2025 Order for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). (Dkt. 17 No. 34.) 18 After carefully considering the arguments and briefing submitted, the Court concludes oral 19 argument is unnecessary, see Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), VACATES the January 22, 2026 hearing, and 20 DENIES Defendant’s motion for the reasons set forth below. An order remanding a case to state 21 court is “not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). “Once a district court 22 certifies a remand order to state court it is divested of jurisdiction and can take no further action on 23 the case.” Seedman v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of California, 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 24 1988). Defendant asserts Section 1447(d) does not preclude the Court from certifying the order as 25 appealable. Not so. While a court may certify order an order denying remand as appealable under 26 certain circumstances, see Mattel, Inc. v. Bryant, 442 F. Supp. 2d 1081, 1089-1100 (C.D. Cal. 27 1 Mar. 4, 2005), aff'd 446 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2006), a court cannot so certify an order granting 2 || remand because, upon certification of the order, the Court “is divested of jurisdiction and can take 3 no further action on the case.” Seedman, 837 F.2d at 415. By extension, because the Court does 4 || not have jurisdiction, it cannot, as Defendant requests in Reply, issue a ruling regarding what the 5 Court would do “if the Court had jurisdiction.” (Dkt. No. 37 at 3); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1(a) 6 || (providing a court may issue an indicative ruling regarding relief “that the court lacks authority to 7 || grant because of an appeal that has been docketed and is pending|.|’) (emphasis added). 8 This Order disposes of Docket No. 34. The Clerk of Court shall mail certified copies of 9 this Order and the updated docket in this case to the Humboldt Superior Court. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: January 13, 2026

4 ACMUELINE SCOTT CORLE United States District Judge

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28