1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 JOYCE ANN ROBERTS, Case No. 2:19-cv-00509-MMD-EJY

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 WALMART INC., et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 12 The Court remanded this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because 13 Defendants failed to show that the amount in controversy is satisfied as required by this 14 Court's order to show cause (ECF No. 6 (“OSC”)). (ECF No. 34 (“Remand Order”).) 15 Defendants have filed a motion for reconsideration contending that newly discovered 16 evidence satisfies the amount in controversy. (ECF No. 35 ("Motion").) Nevertheless, the 17 Court will deny the Motion because

(c) precludes reconsideration of 18 remand orders and because this Court has already divested itself of jurisdiction over the 19 case. 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiff Joyce Ann Roberts sued Walmart and its store manager Art Martinez after 22 she slipped, fell and was injured in a Walmart store in Las Vegas, Nevada. (ECF No. 1-1.) 23 Defendants Walmart, Inc. and Walmart Stores East, LP (“Walmart”) removed the case on 24 March 25, 2019. (ECF No. 1 (Petition for Removal (“Petition”)).) On April 10, 2019, this 25 Court issued the OSC, requiring Walmart to show cause as to why the case should not be 26 remanded for an insufficient amount in controversy. (ECF No. 6.) On April 24, 2019, 27 Walmart timely responded (ECF No. 9 (“Response to the OSC”).), but its Response largely 28 reiterated its Petition. (ECF No. 34 at 2.) 1 On May 16, 2019, Walmart received Plaintiff’s initial disclosures, which disclosed 2 $519,559.49 in damages with an estimated $225,000.00 in future damages. (ECF No. 35- 3 4 at 38:9-12.) Plaintiff then supplemented her disclosures to include $600,000.00 in past 4 pain and suffering and $1,400,000.00 in future pain and suffering. (ECF No. 35-5 at 38:15- 5 16.) Despite knowing that the Court had doubts as to whether the amount in controversy 6 requirement has been satisfied, Walmart never amended its Response to the OSC. In fact, 7 Walmart never alerted the Court to Plaintiff’s disclosures in any other way before the Court 8 issued its Remand Order on September 26, 2019 (ECF No. 34).1 9 On September 27, 2019, Walmart now brings this Motion contending that Plaintiff’s 10 disclosure statements warrant reconsideration of the Remand Order. (ECF No. 35 at 3.) 11 According to the Motion, Plaintiff’s case is not a $47,597.91 case, as Walmart and this 12 Court was led to believe, but is now a $2,744,559.49 case. (Id.) 13 II. ANALYSIS 14 Even if the Motion was meritorious, the Court has no power to reconsider its 15 Remand Order. Pursuant to

(c), the Court remanded this case to the 16 Eighth Judicial District Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 34.) Such 17 remand orders are unreviewable “on appeal or otherwise,”

(d) (emphasis 18 added), which the Ninth Circuit has construed to also preclude reconsideration by the 19 district court. Seedman v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of California,

, 414 20 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Kircher v. Putnam Funds Tr.,

(2006) (“Where 21 a remand order is based on one of § 1447(c)'s grounds, review is unavailable no matter 22 how plain the legal error in ordering the remand.”). See generally Powerex Corp. v. Reliant 23 Energy Servs., Inc.,

(2007) (“Section 1447(d) reflects Congress's 24 longstanding policy of not permitting interruption of the litigation of the merits of a removed 25 case by prolonged litigation of questions of jurisdiction of the district court to which the 26

1On April 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand for lack of diversity. (ECF No. 27 7.) On August 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend complaint and remand for the same reason. (ECF No. 27.) The amount in controversy was not discussed in these 28 motions or in the subsequent oppositions or replies. (ECF Nos. 10, 12, 28, 30.) 1 || cause is removed” (internal quotations and citation omitted).). Moreover, when this Court 2 || “certified [its] remand order to state court,” it “divested [itself] of jurisdiction,” “return[ed] 3 || the case to state court,” and therefore has no power to correct, vacate or even retrieve the 4 || Remand Order. Seedman,

. In fact, the Court “can take no further action 5 || on the case.” /d. Accordingly, this Court denies the Motion.” 6 || lll. CONCLUSION 7 The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several cases 8 || not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and determines Q || that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the issues before 10 || the Court. 11 It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 35) is 12 || denied. 13 Because the Court remanded for lack of jurisdiction, the Court further denies the 14 || Walmart’s pending motion for fees and costs filed in response to Plaintiff's motion to 15 || amend and remand (ECF No. 29). 16 17 DATED THIS 23" day of October 2019. 18 / ( Le. ) 19 MIRANDA M. DU 50 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21 22 23 24 25 2Walmart’s Reply in support of the Motion cites to Navajo Nation v. Confederateo 26 Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation,

(9th Cir. 2003) for the proposition that “[w]hether or not to grant reconsideration is within the sound discretion 27 of the district court.” (ECF No. 37 at 2.) But the Plaintiffs there initiated their action in federal court under federal question jurisdiction. Unlike Navajo Nation, the current case is 98 || 2 removed action involving

(d), which bars courts from reconsidering remand orders.