John Hatcher v. Ron Ferguson
664 F. App'x 308
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs (members of an architectural committee) sued Ron Ferguson in South Carolina state court in April 2013; Ferguson removed the action to federal court multiple times, including a December 2015 removal.
- Plaintiffs moved to remand and asked the district court to bar Ferguson from further removal attempts.
- The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, remanded the case to state court, and prohibited Ferguson from future removals of the same action.
- Ferguson appealed, challenging both the remand and the injunction against future removals.
- The Fourth Circuit evaluated whether it could review the remand order under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) and separately reviewed the sanction (prohibition) under the All Writs Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellate court can review the district court’s remand order | Remand was based on a defect in removal raised timely; §1447(d) bars review | Appellant contends remand was erroneous and should be reviewed | Appeal as to remand dismissed: §1447(d) precludes review where remand was based on defects raised under §1447(c) |
| Whether the district court correctly found lack of complete diversity at removal | Plaintiffs identified lack of complete diversity at removal | Ferguson argued diversity existed or removal was proper | Court treated the diversity/joinder problem as a procedural defect in removal under §1441(a); remand decision not reviewable here |
| Whether the alternative holding—untimely removal under §1446(c)—is reviewable | Plaintiffs relied primarily on procedural defect; timeliness was alternative | Ferguson disputed timeliness | Alternative timeliness holding deemed moot and not addressed on appeal |
| Whether the district court properly barred future removal attempts by Ferguson | Plaintiffs argued removals were vexatious, meriting narrow filing limitation under All Writs Act | Ferguson opposed sanction as improper restraint on access to federal court | Affirmed: prohibition upheld as not an abuse of discretion, narrowly tailored and after notice/opportunity to respond |
Key Cases Cited
- Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124 (1995) (limits appellate review of remand orders under §1447(d))
- Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567 (2004) (joinder/diversity defects can be procedural removal defects)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 (1996) (principles on limitations of removal and subject-matter jurisdiction)
- In re Blackwater Sec. Consulting, LLC, 460 F.3d 576 (4th Cir. 2006) (district court citation to §1447(c) insufficient alone to permit appellate review)
- Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc., 519 F.3d 192 (4th Cir. 2008) (scope of §1447(d) review explained)
- Doe v. Blair, 819 F.3d 64 (4th Cir. 2016) (evaluate remand order reasoning to determine if based on subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F.3d 812 (4th Cir. 2004) (standards for imposing filing restrictions on vexatious litigants)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (inherent powers to sanction and limit abusive litigation conduct)
- Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394 (4th Cir. 1999) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sanctions review)
- Barlow v. Colgate Palmolive Co., 772 F.3d 1001 (4th Cir. 2014) (§1447(d) does not preclude review of collateral sanctions barring future removals)
- Lovern v. Gen. Motors Corp., 121 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 1997) (removal statute should not be manipulated for strategic delay)
- United States v. Basham, 789 F.3d 358 (4th Cir. 2015) (appellate courts may affirm district decisions for any supporting reason on the record)