762 F.3d 568
7th Cir.2014Background
- Robert Lindner sued Union Pacific in Illinois wrongful-death action after his parents were killed when a Union Pacific train derailed and a bridge collapsed.
- Union Pacific removed to federal court based on diversity: decedents (Illinois) vs. Union Pacific (Delaware corp., principal place of business Nebraska); amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
- During discovery Lindner sought leave to amend to add two Illinois-resident Union Pacific employees (Scott and Griffin) as defendants for negligence.
- Union Pacific opposed amendment as futile (federal preemption under 49 U.S.C. § 20106) and argued the court should deny joinder that would destroy diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e).
- The district court granted leave to amend, concluded preemption did not bar the claims or was saved, found joinder proper for non-jurisdictional reasons, and remanded to state court because diversity was destroyed.
- Union Pacific appealed and alternatively sought mandamus; the Seventh Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and denied mandamus as inappropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court may review the district court’s remand order | Lindner: remand proper after joinder destroyed diversity | Union Pacific: should be able to appeal the district court’s contemporaneous grant of leave to amend even though remand followed | Remand order is unreviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review remand |
| Whether the district court’s grant of leave to amend is independently appealable | Lindner: amendment order is non-final and not independently appealable | Union Pacific: amendment order can be reviewed separately from remand (Waco doctrine) | Amendment order is not a final or collateral order; not independently appealable, so no jurisdiction |
| Whether the collateral-order doctrine permits immediate review of the amendment decision | Lindner: state courts can revisit the district court’s reasoning after remand, so the order is reviewable in state court | Union Pacific: denial of immediate review would make the district court’s ruling unreviewable and preclusive | Collateral-order doctrine does not apply; state courts can and will revisit the issue, and the district ruling lacks preclusive effect after remand |
| Whether mandamus is an appropriate alternative remedy | Lindner: mandamus unnecessary because state-court review and appellate remedies exist | Union Pacific: seeks mandamus to avoid defending what it views as preempted claims | Mandamus denied — extraordinary remedy not warranted; adequate alternative remedies exist in state courts and on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Waco, Tex. v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 293 U.S. 140 (discussing reviewability of orders separate from remand)
- Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 551 U.S. 224 (Waco does not permit appeal when no separate reviewable order exists)
- Wingerter v. Chester Quarry Co., 185 F.3d 657 (order allowing amendment is not a final order)
- In re Fla. Wire & Cable Co., 102 F.3d 866 (§ 1447(d) bars review of remand required by § 1447(e))
- Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 547 U.S. 633 (state courts may reject federal court’s pre-remand reasoning; remand order not appealable)
- Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367 (standards for extraordinary writs like mandamus)