Diaz v. Gate Gourmet, Inc.
- William Orrick
- 3:22-cv-01136
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Diaz v. Gate Gourmet, Judge Aenlle-Rocha struck nonparty Mohammed Rahman’s motion to remand because he lacked standing and federal jurisdiction existed.
Nonparty Mohammed Rahman’s attempt to obtain remand was rejected; the federal action remained in the Northern District of California.
What happened
In Alicia Noemi Bautista Diaz v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., nonparty Mohammed Rahman asked the court to send the case back to state court. The court struck his motion because he was not a party and had not asked to intervene, so he lacked standing to seek remand.
The court also said the motion would fail even if treated as a challenge to subject-matter jurisdiction. The parties did not dispute that the court had jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. The earlier remand had been for settlement purposes, not because the court lacked jurisdiction, and the state court’s decision not to consider the settlement supported removing the case again.
Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha ordered that Rahman’s motion to remand be struck. The order did not decide the merits of the underlying case.
The detailed version
- Diaz v. Gate Gourmet, Inc. · No. 3:22-cv-01136
- William Orrick
- Feb. 23, 2022
Background
Nonparty Mohammed Rahman filed a motion to remand, asking the court to return the action to the Los Angeles Superior Court. Rahman was not a party to the action and had not moved to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24.
Court’s reasoning
The court concluded that Rahman lacked standing to file a motion to remand because he was not a party and had not sought intervention. The court further stated that the motion would fail even if construed as a motion challenging subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(h)(3).
The court explained that the parties did not dispute federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). The earlier remand had been based on the parties’ joint stipulation for settlement purposes, and the stipulation preserved the defendant’s right to remove the action again if the state court did not approve the proposed class-action settlement. Because the earlier remand was not based on a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the court rejected Rahman’s argument that the court currently lacked jurisdiction. The court also determined that the state court’s decision not to consider the settlement, while an action against Gate Gourmet was pending in the Northern District of California, was a relevant change in circumstances supporting the second removal.
Disposition
The court STRUCK Rahman’s motion to remand.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.