Green Tree Servicing LLC v. David Cargille
662 F. App'x 118
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Green Tree Servicing LLC filed a foreclosure action against David and Julie Cargille in New Jersey state court.
- The Cargilles removed the action to federal district court on February 4, 2015, alleging diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
- The District Court granted the Cargilles an extension to respond; the Cargilles later moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Green Tree moved to remand on May 20, 2015, arguing removal was barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) because the Cargilles are New Jersey domiciliaries.
- The Cargilles argued Green Tree waived the remand objection by failing to file within 30 days under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
- The District Court remanded, finding § 1441(b)(2) barred removal and rejecting the waiver argument; the Third Circuit vacated that remand order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1441(b)(2)’s in-state defendant rule is jurisdictional or waivable | Cargilles: removal valid; Green Tree waived objection by missing § 1447(c) 30‑day deadline | Green Tree: § 1441(b)(2) bars removal when a defendant is a citizen of the forum state, so remand appropriate | § 1441(b)(2) is a waivable procedural defect, not jurisdictional; untimely remand motion cannot support remand |
| Whether the District Court had authority to remand after 30 days under § 1447(c) | Cargilles: remand improper because Green Tree waived | Green Tree: argued it reasonably delayed awaiting clarity on federal-question assertions | District Court lacked statutory authority to remand on a non‑jurisdictional ground after the 30‑day period; remand vacated |
| Whether § 1447(d) bars appellate review of the remand order | Cargilles: remand order final and unreviewable | Green Tree: sought remand; implicit that § 1447(d) applies | § 1447(d) does not bar review where remand was based on a non‑jurisdictional defect raised untimely and thus outside § 1447(c) authority |
| Whether a federal question existed to justify waiting on remand motion | Cargilles: referenced § 1331 in filings but did not assert a federal-question defense in the record | Green Tree: contends it waited to see if a federal question would be raised before moving to remand | Court found no supporting authority that the 30‑day rule is inapplicable for this reason; delay did not excuse untimely motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Ariel Land Owners, Inc. v. Dring, 351 F.3d 611 (3d Cir. 2003) (standard of review and scope of appellate review when remand affects jurisdictional questions)
- Feidt v. Owens Corning Fiberglass Corp., 153 F.3d 124 (3d Cir. 1998) (§ 1447(d) bars review of remand orders issued under § 1447(c))
- In re FMC Corp. Packaging Systems Div., 208 F.3d 445 (3d Cir. 2000) (district courts lack authority to sua sponte remand based on procedural defects; a motion is required)
- Korea Exchange Bank v. Trackwise Sales Corp., 66 F.3d 46 (3d Cir. 1995) (§ 1441(b)(2) is a waivable procedural defect; untimely remand motion precludes remand under § 1447(c))
- Farina v. Nokia Inc., 625 F.3d 97 (3d Cir. 2010) (noting district court lacked authority to remand where procedural-defect motion was untimely)
- Land Holdings (St. Thomas) Ltd. v. Mega Holdings, Inc., 283 F.3d 616 (3d Cir. 2002) (amount‑in‑controversy met in foreclosure actions)