Bynum v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.
756 F.3d 282
4th Cir.2014Background
- Plaintiff Gilbert Bynum, a Norfolk Southern employee, was injured at a coal terminal and received LHWCA (Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act) benefits.
- Bynum later sued Norfolk Southern in Virginia state court under FELA seeking $30 million in damages.
- Norfolk Southern removed to federal court, arguing the injury was covered by the LHWCA and therefore FELA recovery was barred (so removal was proper to resolve that federal defense).
- Bynum moved to remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1445(a) (FELA actions in state court are nonremovable) and § 1447(c); the district court remanded and denied Norfolk Southern’s motion to dismiss as moot without deciding LHWCA coverage.
- Norfolk Southern appealed the remand and filed a mandamus petition seeking vacatur of the remand or remand to the district court to reach the LHWCA issue.
- The Fourth Circuit concluded it lacked appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) and denied mandamus, dismissing the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a FELA suit filed in state court may be removed when defendant asserts LHWCA coverage that would preclude FELA recovery | Bynum: § 1445(a) bars removal of FELA suits filed in state court; remand proper | Norfolk Southern: removal proper because LHWCA coverage is an exclusively federal question that must be resolved in federal court and, if LHWCA applies, FELA is barred | Held: § 1445(a) nonremovability (a "defect other than lack of subject-matter jurisdiction" under § 1447(c)) supports remand; § 1447(d) bars appellate review of the remand |
| Whether the Waco severability exception or prior precedents (e.g., Shives) permit appellate review of the underlying federal-coverage question when the district court remands | Bynum: district court need not decide LHWCA coverage; remand still proper | Norfolk Southern: Shives supports appellate (or mandamus) review where state court would otherwise decide a federal coverage issue | Held: Waco exception does not apply because the district court did not decide the coverage question (no preclusive, severable federal order); Shives is distinguishable |
| Whether mandamus relief is available to require the district court (or the court of appeals) to decide LHWCA coverage instead of remand | Bynum: remand appropriate; mandamus not warranted | Norfolk Southern: mandamus needed to prevent state-court adjudication of a federal coverage question and to avoid an improper remand | Held: Mandamus denied — § 1447(d) bars review "on appeal or otherwise," and Norfolk Southern failed to show a clear and indisputable entitlement to the writ |
Key Cases Cited
- Thermtron Prods., Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336 (Sup. Ct.) (§ 1447(d) limits review to remands grounded in § 1447(c))
- City of Waco v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 293 U.S. 140 (Sup. Ct.) (severability exception allowing collateral review of orders separable from remand)
- Shives v. CSX Transp., 151 F.3d 164 (4th Cir.) (LHWCA/FELA coverage dispute; appellate review and mandamus allowed on those facts)
- In re Blackwater Sec. Consulting, LLC, 460 F.3d 576 (4th Cir.) (limited appellate jurisdiction where remand was based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; mandamus denied)
- Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., 551 U.S. 224 (Sup. Ct.) (limits on Waco exception; cannot appeal when no order separate from remand)
- Borneman v. United States, 213 F.3d 819 (4th Cir.) (statutory scheme can create a tension that permits review despite § 1447(d))
- Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Schwalb, 493 U.S. 40 (Sup. Ct.) (LHWCA preemption/exclusivity principles relevant to FELA claims)
- Palmer v. City Nat. Bank of W. Va., 498 F.3d 236 (4th Cir.) (application of Waco severability criteria)