Estate of Cummings Ex Rel. Montoya v. Community Health Systems, Inc., 881 F.3d 793

Background

Vera Cummings was treated at Mountain View Regional Medical Center and died; her estate sued physicians, Mountain View, and CHSI in New Mexico state court alleging medical negligence and vicarious liability.
The United States certified the physicians as PHS employees; the action was removed and the United States substituted as to the physicians, leaving FTCA as the remedy for those claims.
The district court dismissed CHSI for lack of personal jurisdiction, granted summary judgment to Mountain View, and dismissed FTCA claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; final judgment followed.
On first appeal the Estate voluntarily dismissed its appeal as to CHSI; this Court affirmed the FTCA dismissal and vacated district-court rulings only as to Mountain View, directing remand of Mountain View claims to state court. The Court clarified its disposition to exclude CHSI.
On remand the district court remanded Mountain View claims but later (after denying a TRO request and invoking its inherent authority) sua sponte vacated its earlier dismissal of CHSI and remanded CHSI claims to state court. CHSI appealed.
The Tenth Circuit reversed: the district court exceeded the mandate and lacked authority to reopen the CHSI personal-jurisdiction dismissal; the appellate court also held it had jurisdiction to review the post-judgment remand order under § 1447 principles.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court could vacate its prior personal-jurisdiction dismissal of CHSI after this Court’s mandate	Estate argued district court properly remanded all supplemental claims because it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the entire case	CHSI argued the Estate had waived appellate review of the personal-jurisdiction dismissal by stipulating to dismiss CHSI from the appeal, so the mandate foreclosed further district-court action on CHSI	Court held Estate waived the issue by stipulation; district court was bound by the appellate mandate and could not vacate the CHSI dismissal or remand those claims
Whether a federal court must address subject-matter jurisdiction before personal jurisdiction in removed cases	Estate (and district court) assumed lack of subject-matter jurisdiction prevented addressing personal jurisdiction	CHSI pointed to precedent permitting a court to resolve personal jurisdiction first and that the district court initially did so appropriately	Court confirmed district courts may decide personal jurisdiction before subject-matter jurisdiction in appropriate cases (citing Sinochem and Ruhrgas) and that initial personal-jurisdiction dismissal was permissible
Whether the district court’s post-judgment remand is reviewable despite 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d)	Estate argued § 1447(d) bars review of remand orders	CHSI argued Thermtron and subsequent cases permit appellate review of remands not authorized by § 1447(c), including remands after final judgment	Court held § 1447(d) does not bar review of remand orders entered after final judgment or where remand was not authorized by § 1447(c); the January 2017 remand was after final appellate disposition and thus reviewable
Whether the district court’s remand of CHSI was authorized by the mandate or § 1447(c)	Estate implied remand was proper because court lacked jurisdiction over state-law claims	CHSI argued the appellate mandate did not include CHSI and § 1447(c) permits remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction only before final judgment	Court held the mandate did not authorize remand of CHSI claims and § 1447(c)’s “before final judgment” requirement was not met; remand was improper

Key Cases Cited

Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (2007) (district court may resolve nonmerits threshold issues like forum non conveniens before subject-matter jurisdiction)
Ruhrgas A.G. v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 (1999) (federal courts have discretion to address personal jurisdiction before subject-matter jurisdiction in removed cases)
Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336 (1976) (remand orders reviewable when not based on § 1447(c) grounds)
Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 551 U.S. 224 (2007) (clarifying § 1447(c)/(d) review limits)
Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124 (1995) (remand for defect in removal procedure is unreviewable under § 1447(d))
Sprague v. Ticonic Nat’l Bank, 307 U.S. 161 (1939) (mandate rule: lower courts must follow appellate mandates)
City of Albuquerque v. Soto Enters., Inc., 864 F.3d 1089 (10th Cir. 2017) (remand review when removing party waived removal rights)