Scott v. New York Administration for Children's Services
678 F. App'x 56
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Maverick Scott filed "Notices of Removal" in federal district court seeking removal of New York Family Court child-neglect proceedings initiated by the New York Administration for Children’s Services involving Scott and his son.
- The District Court sua sponte remanded the case on October 19, 2016, reasoning it lacked removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) because the Southern District of New York (the district embracing the state-court forum) was the proper federal venue.
- Scott appealed the remand order to the Third Circuit.
- The Third Circuit considered whether it had jurisdiction to review the remand given the general bar on appellate review of remand orders in 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d).
- The court concluded the District Court erred to the extent it remanded based on venue defects under § 1441(a), because venue defects do not implicate subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Nonetheless, the Third Circuit affirmed the remand on alternative grounds: the federal courts lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over state child-protective proceedings (no federal question or diversity jurisdiction), and it modified the remand order to send the case to New York County (Manhattan) Family Court and directed transmission of a certified copy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District Court properly remanded sua sponte for failure to file removal in the federal district embracing the state-court forum (venue under § 1441(a)) | Scott argued removal was proper despite filing in the wrong federal district | District Court argued removal jurisdiction lacking because the case was not removed to the district/division embracing the state forum | Remand may not be based on venue defects; failure to remove to the proper district is not a subject-matter jurisdiction defect, so the District Court exceeded authority to remand on that basis |
| Whether the Third Circuit may review the remand order | Scott sought appellate review of the remand | Government/Respondent relied on § 1447(d)’s bar on appellate review of remand orders | Appellate review permitted because the District Court remanded on an impermissible ground (venue); such remands fall outside § 1447(d)’s bar per precedents like Thermtron and Things Remembered |
| Whether the federal courts had subject-matter jurisdiction over the removed Family Court child-protective proceedings | Scott contended removal was appropriate (implicit) | Respondent argued the petition arises under state law and lacks federal-question or diversity jurisdiction | No subject-matter jurisdiction existed; the state child-protective petition does not present federal-question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction, so remand was required on that basis |
| Proper disposition and destination of remand | Scott wanted the case returned to Family Court (general) | District Court remanded to "the Family Court of the State of New York" (imprecise) | Affirmed remand on alternative grounds and modified order to remit to New York County (Manhattan) Family Court and directed certified copy be mailed to state clerk |
Key Cases Cited
- Thermtron Prods., Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336 (U.S. 1976) (district court remand on impermissible grounds permits appellate review)
- Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124 (U.S. 1995) (clarifying limits on appellate review of remand orders)
- In re: FMC Corp. Packaging Sys. Div., 208 F.3d 445 (3d Cir. 2000) (remand not authorized under § 1447(c) permits appellate jurisdiction)
- Peterson v. BMI Refractories, 124 F.3d 1386 (11th Cir. 1997) (failure to comply with removal venue provision does not create subject-matter jurisdiction defect)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 (U.S. 1996) (removal statute is not an independent jurisdictional requirement)
- Korea Exch. Bank v. Trackwise Sales Corp., 66 F.3d 46 (3d Cir. 1995) (consistent refusal to treat removal statute as imposing jurisdictional requirements)
- Bromwell v. Mich. Mut. Ins. Co., 115 F.3d 208 (3d Cir. 1997) (district court must remand sua sponte when subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking)
- Matusow v. Trans-Cty. Title Agency, LLC, 545 F.3d 241 (3d Cir. 2008) (domestic relations and child-custody matters fall outside federal jurisdictional bounds)
- Agostini v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 729 F.3d 350 (3d Cir. 2013) (procedures for transmitting remand orders and divesting federal jurisdiction)