BEPCO, L.P. v. Santa Fe Minerals, Inc.
675 F.3d 466
5th Cir.2012Background
- BEPCO settled Tebow property contamination claim in 2007 and assigned landowners' claims; BEPCO later sued Santa Fe and Lloyd's insurers in Louisiana state court seeking indemnity/contribution for Tebow settlement payments; Transocean acquired GlobalSantaFe and brought cross-claims against insurers including ICAROM; ICAROM (as ICAROM) removed the case to federal court under FSIA in Jan 2011; BEPCO moved to remand arguing a service-of-suit clause waived removal and improper joinder; district court remanded based on §1447(c) grounds and BEPCO’s timely remand motion; ICAROM appeals, challenging jurisdiction and seeking mandamus alternative.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Remand reviewability for timely §1447(c) ground | BEPCO argue removal defects timely; remand proper | ICAROM argues appeal may review remand | Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to §1447(c) grounds |
| Timeliness framework under §1447(c) whether timing of remand motion governs | Timely remand motion; grounds raised timely | Untimeliness not a jurisdictional bar to remand grounds | Timeliness governs remand grounds; district court within authority; no reviewable error |
| Alternative mandamus review viability | ICAROM seeks mandamus if remand reviewable | Remand order unreviewable; mandamus inappropriate | No mandamus jurisdiction; remand unreviewable on appeal or mandamus |
Key Cases Cited
- Schexnayder v. Entergy La., Inc., 394 F.3d 280 (5th Cir. 2004) (removal-remand review limited; §1447(c) grounds govern)
- Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706 (U.S. 1996) (remand power constrained by §1447(c))
- Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 547 U.S. 633 (U.S. 2006) (remand order reviewable where grounded in §1447(c))
- Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 130 S. Ct. 2149 (U.S. 2010) (statutory interpretation of §1447(c))
- Pittsburg-Des Moines Steel Co. v. Northern California District Council of Laborers, 69 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 1995) (timeliness of removal defects; not controlling here but cited on §1447(c) timing)
- In re Adm'rs of Tulane Educ. Fund, 954 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1992) (mandamus viability context for remand orders)