MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. The Hanover Insurance Company, 995 F.3d 1289

MSP Recovery Claims ("MSP") filed multiple "pure bills of discovery" in Florida state court seeking information to identify proper defendants and theories for future suit on assigned medical-payor claims.
Seventeen insurers removed seven consolidated cases to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction; MSP moved to remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) and sought attorney’s fees and costs under § 1447(c).
The district court granted MSP’s timely motions to remand but denied MSP’s requests for attorney’s fees and costs; MSP appealed the fee denials, and three insurers cross-appealed the remand orders.
Insurers argued remand was erroneous because the amount-in-controversy exceeded $75,000 given MSP’s ultimate monetary objective; MSP argued removal was objectively unreasonable in light of prior remand decisions.
The Eleventh Circuit held it lacked jurisdiction over the insurers’ cross-appeals because the district court remanded after timely motions (thus § 1447(d) bars review) and affirmed the denial of fees, finding no abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to review remand orders	MSP: Remand proper; not at issue for appeal	Insurers: Remand was effectively sua sponte or for non-jurisdictional defects, so reviewable	Court: Lacks jurisdiction over cross-appeals—district court granted timely motions to remand, so § 1447(d) bars review
Whether district court abused discretion by denying attorney’s fees under § 1447(c)	MSP: Fees warranted because insurers had clear notice from prior, similar remands—removal objectively unreasonable	Insurers: Removal had an objectively reasonable basis; prior district rulings do not make removal per se unreasonable	Court: No abuse of discretion; fee award is not mandatory simply because prior district rulings existed; denial affirmed

Hunter v. City of Montgomery, 859 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. 2017) (discusses when a remand was sua sponte and appellate reviewability)
Corp. Mgmt. Advisors, Inc. v. Artjen Complexus, Inc., 561 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2009) (sua sponte remand for procedural defect may be reviewable)
Schexnayder v. Entergy Louisiana, Inc., 394 F.3d 280 (5th Cir. 2004) (rejects treating a remand’s differing rationale as a sua sponte remand)
Bauknight v. Monroe County, 446 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2006) (standard for awarding fees under § 1447(c): lack of objectively reasonable basis)
Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (U.S. 2005) (no presumption in favor of fee awards under § 1447(c); fees if removal objectively unreasonable)
First Union Nat’l Bank of Fla. v. Hall, 123 F.3d 1374 (11th Cir. 1997) (look to terms of the remand order to determine reviewability)
McGinley v. Houston, 361 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 2004) (district court opinions are not binding precedent obligating fees when removal follows adverse district decisions)