The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
GIROD LOANCO, LLC CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 25-1127
HENRY L. KLEIN SECTION: D(5)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court are two Motions for Reconsideration of the Order Remanding
Case to State Court filed by Defendant Henry L. Klein (“Klein”).1 Plaintiff Girod
LoanCo, LLC, (“Girod”) opposes the Motions.2 After careful consideration of the
parties’ memoranda, the record, and the applicable law, the Motions are DENIED.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND3
Finding that removal of this action to federal court was both improper due to
a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and untimely, this Court issued an order and
reasons remanding this case to Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans on
August 22, 2025. A week later, Klein filed a Motion for Reconsideration of that Order
and Reasons; he filed a subsequent motion on August 31, 2025, with additional
exhibits. Klein argues (1) that removal was proper under 28 U.S.C. §1443 because of
a violation of his First Amendment violation of equal access to courts (2) that removal
was not untimely because of a clerical error in mailing the notice of judgment to an
incorrect address, (3) that Girod did not have the right to file a Motion to Remand,
1 R. Docs. 52, 53.
2 R. Doc. 54.
3 In the interest of judicial efficiency, the Court adopts the Factual and Procedural Background from
the Order and Reasons Remanding the Case to State Court (R. Doc. 51) and incorporates it here by
reference.
and (4) that the Declaratory Judgment Act provides this Court the hear the present
case.4 Girod responds that a Motion for Reconsideration is improper because the
Order of Remand completely divested this Court of jurisdiction at the moment that
the certified copy of this Court’s remand order was mailed to the Clerk of Civil District
Court for the Parish of Orleans.5
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), “any order or other decision,
however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims . . . does not end the
action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the
entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and
liabilities.”6
III. ANALYSIS
Under 28 U.S.C. §1447, “[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from
which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise” unless the case was
“removed pursuant to section 1442 or 1443 of this title.”7 This rule “has been part of
American jurisprudence for at least a century.”8 Per Klein’s Notice of Removal, he did
not remove this case under Sections 1442 or 1443 of Title 28.9 The Defendant’s
characterization of the removal now as being a civil rights action cannot confer this
4 R. Doc. 53 at p. 1-3.
5 R. Doc 54 at p. 1-2.
6 FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b).
7 28 U.S.C. §1447
8 American Bank & Trust Co., Inc. v. Roberts, 2011 WL 6660922 (E.D. La. Dec. 21, 2011) (Fallon, J.)
(quoting In re Lowe, 102 F.3d 731, 734 (4th Cir. 1996)).
9 See R. Doc. 1 at p. 1-3.
Court with either jurisdiction or the power to reconsider.10 As a result, under Section
1447, the order remanding the case to state court is not reviewable.
Jurisprudentially, “[i]f [remand is] based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
once the Clerk of Court mails a certified copy of the remand order to the state court,
the federal court is completely divested of its jurisdiction, including for
reconsideration purposes.”11 Even if this Court were to find that the Order to Remand
was erroneous—which it does not— a remand order cannot be vacated even by the
district court.”12 The Order and Reasons for Remand stated that the case was being
remanded due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.13 The Clerk of Court then
mailed a certified copy of this Court’s Remand Order on August 22, 2025, which
effectuated a divestment of this Court’s jurisdiction under law.14 As a result, based
on both statute and jurisprudence, this Court lacks the jurisdiction to consider the
Motions to Reconsider its order remanding the case to Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
10 See Liedtke v. State Bar of Tex., 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir. 1994).
11 Arnoult v. Gen. Elec. Cap. Corp., No. Civ.A. 03-0011, 2004 WL 764193, at *3 (E.D. La. Apr. 8, 2004)
(citing Browning v. Navarro, 743 F.2d 1069 (5th Cir.1984)).
12 Helmer v. Weaver, 123 F. Supp. 2d 1010, 1011 (E.D. La. 2000) (Barbier, J.) (quoting New Orleans
Public Service v. Majoue, 802 F.2d 166, 167 (5th Cir.1986)).
13 R. Doc. 51, at p. 5 (“Klein has failed to establish that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction, and
the Court therefore must remand this matter.”).
14 R. Doc. 51-1.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Henry L. Klein’s Motions for
Reconsideration are DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, September 24, 2025.
WENDY B. Lin
United States District Judge
15 R. Does. 52, 53.