Top Law Schools

I'm pretty sure the answer is no-- but, can a plaintiff motion to remand after the verdict has been given? I know §1447(c) says a plaintiff has 30 days after removal, unless it's for lack of subject matter which can be brought up at any time... but I can't find anything that explicitly says yes/no to after the verdict.

Thanks!!

The answer is yes.

United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630 (2002) wrote: [The] concept of subject-matter jurisdiction, because it involves a court's power to hear a case, can never be forfeited or waived. Consequently, defects in subject-matter jurisdiction require correction regardless of whether the error was raised in district court.

Thank you so much for answering-- we didn't read that case but we read the Motley case which is what the court cited to in that case--

I was wondering if you (or anyone) would mind giving me a little extra help.... so they hypo situation is that blah blah blah law suit... a million parties... removed to fed court... and then after the verdict one of the plaintiffs moves to remand, and i need to address the motion....

[Please be patient with me if this is a stupid question... I am inflicted with the plague/a sinus infection and when i went to the dr this morning i gave the wrong house address]

So I think in answering-- I'd mention the Motley case-- and then, I think, I'd mention Rule 12(h)(3) [case may be dismissed whenev if no SM jdx]-- but how exactly do I get from case being able to be dismissed at any time, to remanded? especially since 1447 only talks about motions to remand re: subject matter jurisdiction prior to verdict. if a case is remanded is that the same thing as being dismissed and then re-filed in state court?

Ok, thank you soooo much

what the defect in the removal process precisely is the plaintiff alleging? if there was never any smj, and the district judge missed it, you're screwed in the CoA unless its res judicata.

nymario wrote:The answer is yes.

United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630 (2002) wrote: [The] concept of subject-matter jurisdiction, because it involves a court's power to hear a case, can never be forfeited or waived. Consequently, defects in subject-matter jurisdiction require correction regardless of whether the error was raised in district court.

This is 98% true but not completely true. If the motion to remand is because of a defect in subject matter jurisdiction, this is absolutely correct. However courts can also remand based on various abstention doctrines (Pullman Abstention, Younger Abstention, etc.) where they technically have subject matter jurisdiction, but caselaw indicates that permissive abstention is warranted because it is in the interests of justice and/or judicial efficiency.

If P's motion to remand were trying to invoke some abstention doctrine (rather than being based on subject matter jurisdiction), he might not be able to do so after a verdict.

Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 (1996)

"A district court's error in failing to remand a case [based on lack of subject matter jdx] improperly removed is not fatal to the ensuing adjudication if federal jurisdictional requirements are met at the time judgment is entered"

The motion doesn't specify why P wants to remand, but the court probably lacked SM jd. I've never heard of abstentions! There's nothing to indicate any other reason for remand (like faulty notice procedures and stuff).

Thank you all for your input, I really appreciate it!

belkin wrote:The motion doesn't specify why P wants to remand, but the court probably lacked SM jd. I've never heard of abstentions! There's nothing to indicate any other reason for remand (like faulty notice procedures and stuff).

Thank you all for your input, I really appreciate it!

Yeah abstention is a fed courts topic so I doubt you'd be asked to know it on a civpro exam. Also, 99% of the time a motion to remand will be on the basis of lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

But, we're law students, and we're trained to be nitpicky, so there you go.