MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF PHYSICIANS v. TORZONE (2024)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

On September 24, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff Maryland State Board of Physicians (the “Board”)’s motion to remand this matter to state court for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 18.) The clerk of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County subsequently acknowledged receipt of a certified copy of that order and other docket entries. (ECF No. 20.)

Now pending before the Court is Defendant Raelynn Torzone's Motion to Reconsider. (ECF No. 22.) Torzone argues that the Court should reconsider its remand ruling, because federal jurisdiction exists both on the basis of diversity of citizenship and because of “[t]he Plaintiff's request for class action designation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b).” (Id. at 1.)

Torzone's Motion must be denied, because the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a motion to reconsider its remand order.¹ The federal removal statute provides that, subject to narrow exceptions not relevant here, “[a]n 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). The Fourth Circuit has held that “[i]ndisputably, ‘otherwise’ in § 1447(d) includes reconsideration by the district court.” In re Lowe, 102 F.3d 731, 734 (4th Cir. 1996). Thus, “a federal court loses jurisdiction over a case as soon as its order to remand the case is entered. From that point on, it cannot reconsider its ruling.” Id. at 736.

Because the Court is prohibited from reconsidering its remand order, it is ORDERED that Torzone's Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 22) is DENIED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Court observes that even if it had jurisdiction (which it does not), the Motion would likely still be denied on the merits. Torzone argues that there is diversity of citizenship because “Plaintiff's Private Membership Association (PMA) operates across multiple states, and the [Board]’s actions have targeted members residing outside of Maryland.” (ECF No. 22 at 1.) However, the PMA is not a party to this case, and it is undisputed that the Board is solely a citizen of Maryland. As to the class action argument, contrary to Torzone's assertion, Plaintiff (i.e., the Board), has not moved for class certification. To the extent that, on a liberal reading of Torzone's pro se filing, the Court should understand Torzone to mean that she intends to bring class action counterclaims, the Court has already explained that the presence of federal counterclaims does not suffice to establish federal removal jurisdiction. (ECF No. 20 at 3.)

James K. Bredar, United States District Judge