Big Country Vein Relief, L.P. v. Directory Assistants, Inc., 425 F. App'x 287

Big Country Vein Relief (Texas) sued DAI in July 2009 seeking to enjoin pending arbitration.
DAI, a Connecticut citizen, timely removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds after arbitration occurred.
Big Country amended its complaint to add four non-diverse defendants and sought a declaratory judgment that the arbitration award was unenforceable.
Northern District of Texas initially denied remand, but, on reconsideration, remanded the case to state court on November 23, 2009.
On July 16, 2010, Big Country moved to vacate the arbitration award; service had only been on DAI; DAI removed again on August 16, 2010 asserting untimely removal under §1446(b) and equitably tolling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the remand order is reviewable on appeal	DAI contends §1447(d) bars review except for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or removal defects.	Big Country relies on discretionary remand cases (Carlsbad) to argue §1447(d) does not bar review of equitable tolling decisions.	We lack jurisdiction to review remand under §1447(d).

Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., 551 U.S. 224 (2007) (read in pari materia with §1447(c) and (d) on reviewability of remands)
Thermtron Prods., Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336 (1976) (remands for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; review bar)
Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706 (1996) (limits on appellate review of remand grounds)
Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124 (1995) (equitable tolling and removal defect timing; remand grounds)
Carlsbad Technology, Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1862 (2009) (remand premised on discretionary decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction)
Tedford v. Warner-Lambert Co., 327 F.3d 423 (5th Cir. 2003) (equitable tolling recognized as relevant to removal timing)
Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs.,, 551 U.S. 224 (2007) (statutory interpretation of §1447(d) and timing for review)