979 F.3d 857
10th Cir.2020Background
- Elite Oil Field Enterprises (Colorado corp.) was formed in 2012; Reilly (25%) and Tixier (75%) were principal owners and officers.
- Reilly allegedly formed Element Services (Colorado) with funding/advice from his brother Garrett (California) and solicited Elite’s customers and employees.
- Elite sued Garrett and others in Colorado state court for aiding-and-abetting, tortious interference, conversion, civil conspiracy, and related claims.
- Garrett removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction; Elite then filed an amended complaint adding multiple defendants (including Reilly and Element) whose joinder destroyed diversity.
- The district court permitted the amendment and remanded the action to state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Defendants appealed the denial of their motion to strike/dismiss the amended complaint; the Tenth Circuit held § 1447(d) bars appellate review of remands based on loss of subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1447(d) bars appellate review of a remand entered after joinder under § 1447(e) destroyed diversity | Elite: § 1447(d) bars review of remands based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, including post-removal losses of jurisdiction | Defendants: § 1447(d) applies only to remands under § 1447(c); remand under § 1447(e) is reviewable | Held: § 1447(d) bars review of remands based on post-removal loss of subject-matter jurisdiction under § 1447(e); appeal dismissed |
| Whether the appellate court may review the district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to strike the amended complaint (challenge to joinder) | Elite: Reviewing denial would permit review of the remand in substance and is barred by § 1447(d) | Defendants: Denial of the motion to strike is a collateral order subject to review and shows abuse of discretion | Held: Review of the denial would impermissibly review the remand; appellate jurisdiction lacking, so court did not address merits |
| Whether Powerex and related precedent control the scope of § 1447(d) | Elite: Powerex treats post-removal loss of subject-matter jurisdiction as remand covered by § 1447(c) and thus unreviewable | Defendants: § 1447(e) is distinct and the remand here was not under § 1447(c) | Held: Powerex and circuit decisions show post-removal loss of SMJ is indistinguishable for § 1447(d) purposes; bar applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336 (1976) (interpreting §1447(d) in pari materia with §1447(c) to limit review of certain remands)
- Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Serv., Inc., 551 U.S. 224 (2007) (held remands for post-removal loss of subject-matter jurisdiction are covered by §1447(c) and unreviewable under §1447(d))
- Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 547 U.S. 633 (2006) (§1447(d) bars appellate review even if district court committed legal error in ordering remand)
- Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706 (1996) (interpreting scope of §1447(d) and §1447(c))
- Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124 (1995) (addressing limits on review of remand orders)