Trust for Susan v. Curtis

S.D. Texas

Trust for Susan v. Curtis

DecidedSeptember 26, 2024

Docket4:24-cv-00262

StatusUnknown

This text of Trust for Susan v. Curtis (Trust for Susan v. Curtis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Trust for Susan v. Curtis, (S.D. Tex. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

Souther District of Texas ENTERED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT September 26, □□□□ FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clark HOUSTON DIVISION TRUST FOR SUSAN, § Plaintiff, v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:24-cv-262 TAMIKA CURTIS ; Defendant. : § ORDER Pending before the Court is Defendant Tamika Curtis’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 7) of Order on Motion to Remand. (Doc. No. 5). Plaintiff PUPPA LLC (erroneously named as Trust for Susan, predecessor in interest) (hereinafter “Plaintiff’) responded. (Doc. No. 8). On March 6, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiffs motion to remand (Doc. No. 4) because the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 5). The Court found it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the Court had no diversity jurisdiction, no federal question jurisdiction due to the “well-pleaded complaint” rule, and Defendant’s removal violated the “forum defendant” rule. (Doc. No. 5). A district court is divested of jurisdiction to reconsider the matter once the order is certified and mailed by the clerk of the district court. New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v, Majoue, 802 F.2d 166, 167 (Sth Cir. 1986); Clark v. Ciba Vision Corp., No. CIV.A. C-10-317, 2010 WL 4702450, at *1 (S.D, Tex. Nov. 11, 2010). While the Court would uphold its ruling, even if a district court later decides the order was erroneous, a remand order cannot be vacated even by the district court. New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc., 802 F.2d at 167.

For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED. (Doc. No. 7). SIGNED at this26 day of September, 2024. \ ) Andrew S. Hanen United States District Judge

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

Souther District of Texas ENTERED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT September 26, □□□□ FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clark HOUSTON DIVISION TRUST FOR SUSAN, § Plaintiff, v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:24-cv-262 TAMIKA CURTIS ; Defendant. : § ORDER Pending before the Court is Defendant Tamika Curtis’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 7) of Order on Motion to Remand. (Doc. No. 5). Plaintiff PUPPA LLC (erroneously named as Trust for Susan, predecessor in interest) (hereinafter “Plaintiff’) responded. (Doc. No. 8). On March 6, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiffs motion to remand (Doc. No. 4) because the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 5). The Court found it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the Court had no diversity jurisdiction, no federal question jurisdiction due to the “well-pleaded complaint” rule, and Defendant’s removal violated the “forum defendant” rule. (Doc. No. 5). A district court is divested of jurisdiction to reconsider the matter once the order is certified and mailed by the clerk of the district court. New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v, Majoue, 802 F.2d 166, 167 (Sth Cir. 1986); Clark v. Ciba Vision Corp., No. CIV.A. C-10-317, 2010 WL 4702450, at *1 (S.D, Tex. Nov. 11, 2010). While the Court would uphold its ruling, even if a district court later decides the order was erroneous, a remand order cannot be vacated even by the district court. New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc., 802 F.2d at 167.

For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED. (Doc. No. 7). SIGNED at this26 day of September, 2024. \ ) Andrew S. Hanen United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Trust for Susan v. Curtis, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trust-for-susan-v-curtis-txsd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack