Opinion
Civil No. 3:03-CV-2922-H
February 13, 2004
ORDER
Before the Court is the Council Members' and the City's Motion to Reconsider and Motion to Modify Final Judgment, filed February 5, 2004. The Council Members and the City move the Court to reconsider its Memorandum Opinion and Order, entered February 4, 2004, in which the Court remanded the entire case to state court for lack of jurisdiction. The Council Members and the City contend that the Court should have dismissed the unripe federal counterclaims before remanding the remainder of the case to state court. (Br. at 2, 5.) There is no dispute that the Council Members and the City removed this case solely on the basis of unripe federal counterclaims. (Id.) "If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 69 (1996). See also Sandy Creek Investors, Ltd. v. City of Jonestown, 325 F.3d 623, 626 (5th Cir. 2003) (instructing the district court to remand a case to state court where the removal was based on an unripe federal takings claim and a subsumed federal substantive due process claim); Shields v. Norton, 289 F.3d 832, 835 (5th Cir. 2002) ("[R]ipeness is a constitutional prerequisite to the exercise of jurisdiction."). Thus, because it lacked removal jurisdiction over the case, the Court's only recourse was to remand the case to the state court from which it was removed. See Milliken v. Town of Addison, No. 3:02-CV-1164-D, 2002 WL 31059802, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 13, 2002) (Fitzwater, J.) (holding that the proper procedure is to remand the entire case to state court where removal was based on an unripe federal takings claim). Accordingly, the Council Members' and the City's motions are DENIED.
THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO FAX THIS ORDER TO COUNSEL IMMEDIATELY.
SO ORDERED.