Bender v. Mazda Motor Corp.
657 F.3d 1200
11th Cir.2011Background
- Appellants removed a Alabama wrongful-death suit to federal court based on diversity; decedent’s family sued Mazda and Ford plus others.
- Plaintiff alleged defective airbag caused decedent’s injuries and death; suit originally included Pugh and J&G Auto Sales as defendants.
- District court remanded the case to state court after finding lack of evidence that the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement was met, following Lowery v. Alabama Power Co.
- Appellants later relied on Roe v. Michelin North America, Inc. and a then-pending Roe decision to argue jurisdiction remained; the district court denied a stay and remanded in February 2010.
- This Court later affirmed Roe, and within 30 days Appellants filed a Rule 60(b)(6) motion to reconsider the remand in light of new circuit precedent.
- The district court denied the motion, holding it no longer had jurisdiction after remand, and this Court affirmed the denial on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 1447(d) bars district-court reconsideration of its remand order | Harris allows Rule 60(b)(6) relief from remand | Harris prohibits reconsideration of remand under §1447(d) | Harris controls; no review of remand order allowed |
| Whether Rule 60(b)(6) can override §1447(d) in this context | Ritter factors justify relief from remand in light of Roe | §1447(d) bars any such relief regardless of Ritter | §1447(d) bars relief; remand affirmed |
| Whether the district court properly remanded based on lack of jurisdiction or amount-in-controversy | Roe clarified jurisdictional standards supporting removal | Remand appropriate under §1447(c) when jurisdiction lacking | Remand proper; court lacked jurisdiction to revisit after remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Alabama, Inc., 951 F.2d 325 (11th Cir.1992) (remand not reviewable; §1447(d) bars reconsideration of remand orders)
- Ritter v. Smith, 811 F.2d 1398 (11th Cir.1987) (four-factor test for Rule 60(b)(6) relief)
- Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336 (Supreme Court 1976) (§1447(d) scope; remand review limitations)
- Roe v. Michelin North America, Inc., 613 F.3d 1058 (11th Cir.2010) (circuit precedent on the Roe-based jurisdictional issue)
- Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744 (11th Cir.2010) (removal-notice standards under §1446(b))
- Lowery v. Alabama Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir.2007) (amount-in-controversy standards for removal)