From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gravitt v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co.

U.S.
Apr 25, 1977
430 U.S. 723 (1977)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

holding unreviewable a remand order purporting to rest on a ground within the scope of § 1447(c)

Summary of this case from Osborn v. Haley
See 20 Summaries

Opinion

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 76-1036.

Decided April 25, 1977

The District Court's order remanding a removed diversity tort action to the state courts for apparent lack of complete diversity among the parties was clearly within 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c), which provides for remanding a removed action when the district court determines that "the case was removed improvidently and without jurisdiction," and hence, under § 1447(d), was not reviewable by the Court of Appeals. Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, distinguished.

Certiorari granted; ___ F.2d ___, reversed and remanded.

PER CURIAM.

This tort action was removed from the Texas state courts to the United States District Court on the grounds of diversity of citizenship but was remanded as having been "improperly removed" when it seemed that there was not complete diversity among the parties. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, by mandamus, ordered the District Court to vacate its remand order because the latter had employed erroneous principles in concluding that it was without jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeals erred. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c) provides for remanding a removed action when the district court determines that "the case was removed improvidently and without jurisdiction"; and when a remand has been ordered on these grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (d) unmistakably commands that the order "remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise . . . ." The District Court's remand order was plainly within the bounds of § 1447(c) and hence was unreviewable by the Court of Appeals, by mandamus or otherwise. Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336 (1976), is not to the contrary, for there the District Court remanded "on grounds wholly different from those upon which § 1447(c) permits remand." Id., at 344. Thermtron did not question but re-emphasized the rule that § 1447(c) remands are not reviewable.

The petition for certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

Summaries of

Gravitt v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co.

U.S.
Apr 25, 1977
430 U.S. 723 (1977)

holding unreviewable a remand order purporting to rest on a ground within the scope of § 1447(c)

Summary of this case from Osborn v. Haley

holding that § 1447(d) barred review of remand order finding that the removing defendant was judicially estopped from alleging diversity of citizenship, regardless of the parties' true citizenship

Summary of this case from Atkins v. Ford Motor Co.

holding that we cannot use mandamus to review a remand order that would not be reviewable by direct appeal

Summary of this case from Linton v. Airbus Industrie

holding that a court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an order to remand where that order is based on the district court's lack of jurisdiction

Summary of this case from Old Mill, LLC v. Am. Res. Ins. Co.

finding unreviewable a remand order that purported to rely on § 1447(c)

Summary of this case from Executive Software N. Am. v. U.S. Dist. Court

finding unreviewable a remand order that purported to rely on § 1447(c)

Summary of this case from Executive Software v. U.S. Dist. Court

reversing judgment where the court of appeals “ordered the District Court to vacate its remand order because the latter had employed erroneous principles in concluding that it was without jurisdiction”

Summary of this case from Barlow v. Colgate Palmolive Co.

reversing judgment where the court of appeals "ordered the District Court to vacate its remand order because the latter had employed erroneous principles in concluding that it was without jurisdiction"

Summary of this case from Barlow v. Colgate Palmolive Co.

reversing judgment where the court of appeals "ordered the District Court to vacate its remand order because the latter had employed erroneous principles in concluding that it was without jurisdiction"

Summary of this case from Barlow v. Colgate Palmolive Co.

noting the clause's "unmistakabl[e] command"

Summary of this case from Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Boulder Cnty. v. Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc.

noting that § 1447(d) gives an "unmistakable command" so as to preclude review of remands for grounds stated in § 1447(c) "by appeal, mandamus, or otherwise"

Summary of this case from Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's v. Warrantech

In Gravitt, the action had been removed to federal court on the basis of diversity of citizenship and had been remanded by the district court on the ground that diversity was not complete.

Summary of this case from In re WTC Disaster Site

In Gravitt the district court remanded a removed case upon concluding there was not complete diversity among the parties.

Summary of this case from Anusbigian v. Trugreen/Chemlawn, Inc.

In Gravitt, 430 U.S. at 723, 97 S.Ct. at 1439, the district court had afforded the removing defendant an opportunity to be heard before granting the plaintiff's remand motion.

Summary of this case from Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ward Trucking Corp.

In Gravitt v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 430 U.S. 723, 97 S.Ct. 1439, 52 L.Ed.2d 1 (1977), the Supreme Court interpreted section 1447(d) in conjunction with section 1447(c), which requires the trial court to remand a case whenever "it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction" or when improper removal procedures are followed.

Summary of this case from Bradgate Associates v. Fellows, Read Assoc

In Gravitt, the district court used an erroneous legal conclusion — that the defendant was judicially estopped from asserting the basis for its diversity claim — to reach its decision that it had no jurisdiction over the case.

Summary of this case from Kunzi v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.

limiting Thermtron

Summary of this case from First Nat. Bank of Waukesha v. Warren

In Gravitt v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 430 U.S. 723, 97 S.Ct. 1439, 52 L.Ed.2d 1 (1977), the Supreme Court held, in effect, that the statute means exactly what it says, and that mandamus relief is not available with respect to remand orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Summary of this case from General Elec. Co. v. Byrne

In Gravitt v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 430 U.S. 723, 723-724 (1977), the Supreme Court held when a district court remands a case pursuant to § 1447(c), then § 1447(d) "unmistakably commands that the order remanding the case... is not reviewable" by a court of appeal or otherwise.

Summary of this case from De Leon v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc.

stating that remands by the district court to the state court from which removal was attempted are "not reviewable"

Summary of this case from Doom v. Seymour
Case details for

Gravitt v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co.

Case Details

Full title:GRAVITT, EXECUTRIX ET AL. v . SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO. ET AL

Court:U.S.

Date published: Apr 25, 1977

Citations

430 U.S. 723 (1977)
97 S. Ct. 1439

Citing Cases

Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ward Trucking Corp.

Id. at 352, 96 S.Ct. at 593. One year later, the Supreme Court revisited the issue of section 1447(d)'s…

Tillman v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

Remand after removal is controlled by § 1447(c), which provides that "[i]f ... it appears that the district…

147 Citing Cases