Laura Flam v. Marshall Flam
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9502
9th Cir.2015Background
- Laura Flam sued her ex-husband Marshall Flam in Fresno County Superior Court, alleging failures related to division and notice about pension account transfers and missing statutory account statements after divorce.
- Dr. Flam removed the action to federal court in the Eastern District of California, asserting federal-question jurisdiction under ERISA.
- Ms. Flam moved to remand; the assigned magistrate judge issued an order remanding the case to state court.
- Dr. Flam timely sought reconsideration in the district court under the district’s local rules; the district court refused, concluding 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) barred review of the magistrate’s remand order.
- Dr. Flam appealed the district court’s denial of reconsideration to the Ninth Circuit, which reviewed whether magistrate judges may issue remand orders and whether § 1447(d) precludes review of a magistrate’s remand.
Issues
| Issue | Flam's Argument | Dr. Flam's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a magistrate judge may issue a § 1447(c) remand order under 28 U.S.C. § 636 | Magistrate could enter the remand order | A remand order is dispositive and thus beyond magistrate authority | Remand motions are dispositive; magistrates lack authority to enter remand orders and must issue a report & recommendation |
| Whether § 1447(d) bars review of a magistrate’s remand order | § 1447(d) prevents district review of any remand order | § 1447(d) does not bar review when the remand was issued by a magistrate who lacked power | § 1447(d) does not bar review where the remand was unauthorized (magistrate lacked power); district court erred in refusing to review |
Key Cases Cited
- Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336 (1976) (§ 1447(c) and § 1447(d) must be read together; only § 1447(c)-based remands are insulated from review)
- Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 551 U.S. 224 (2007) (explaining Thermtron’s gloss and limits on § 1447(d) immunity)
- Williams v. Beemiller, Inc., 527 F.3d 259 (2d Cir. 2008) (remand motions are dispositive under § 636(b)(1)(A); magistrate must issue R&R)
- Vogel v. U.S. Office Products Co., 258 F.3d 509 (6th Cir. 2001) (functional analysis concluding remand motions are dispositive)
- In re U.S. Healthcare, 159 F.3d 142 (3d Cir. 1998) (magistrate lacks authority to remand; § 1447(d) does not bar review of such remands)
- Harmston v. City & County of San Francisco, 627 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 2010) (remand orders have elements of finality with respect to federal proceedings)
- Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2003) (if a court lacked authority to remand under § 1447(c), § 1447(d) does not preclude review)