Hamilton v. Aetna Life and Cas. Co.
Decision Date | 27 September 1993 |
Docket Number | No. 19,D,19 |
Citation | 5 F.3d 642 |
Parties | James G. HAMILTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AETNA LIFE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. ocket 92-7941. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
James G. Hamilton, pro se.
Day, Berry & Howard, Hartford, CT (Thomas J. Groark, Jr., of counsel, on the brief), for defendant-appellee.
Before: MESKILL, KEARSE, and WINTER, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff pro se James G. Hamilton, who initiated in state court, and removed to federal court, this action against defendant Aetna Life and Casualty Co. ("Aetna") for wrongful discharge in violation of state law, appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, Jose A. Cabranes, Judge, now Chief Judge, remanding the action to state court. The district court, in response to a motion by Aetna to dismiss the action for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction, entered the order of remand, stating that Hamilton had no right to remove his own action. Aetna seeks affirmance or, in the alternative, dismissal of the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. For the reasons stated below, we affirm on the ground that there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction.
Provisions governing the procedures for removal of actions to federal court and the review of orders remanding those actions to state court are set out in 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1441-1452 (1988). Several sections permit removal by defendants, see, e.g., id. Secs. 1441(a) and (b) ( ); id. Sec. 1441(b) ( ); id. Sec. 1442 ( ). No section provides for removal by a plaintiff. See generally 14A C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 3731, at 502 (1985) ("Plaintiffs cannot remove...."). An action removed other than in accordance with the statutory provisions may be remanded to state court. However, Sec. 1447(c), as amended in 1988 by the Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act, Pub.L. No. 100-702, 102 Stat. 4642, 4670 (1988), provides, in pertinent part, that
[a] motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect in removal procedure must be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal under section 1446(a). If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.
28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(c). Under this provision, all motions for remand--except those based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction--must be made within 30 days after removal or they are waived. See, e.g., In re Shell Oil Co., 932 F.2d 1523, 1527 n. 6 (5th Cir.1991) (), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 914, 116 L.Ed.2d 814 (1992); Air-Shields, Inc. v. Fullam, 891 F.2d 63, 65 (3d Cir.1989) (district court's sua sponte decision to remand on Section 1447(d) provides that, except in a case removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1443 ( ), "[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise." 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(d). Despite its facial breadth, this provision insulates from appellate review only those remand orders that are authorized by Sec. 1447(c). See Gravitt v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 430 U.S. 723, 723-24 (1977) (per curiam); Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 346, 96 S.Ct. 584, 591, 46 L.Ed.2d 542 (1976) (). Though Gravitt and Thermtron were construing a pre-1988 version of Sec. 1447(c) that required the district court to remand a case if it appeared, prior to final judgment, that the action "was removed improvidently and without jurisdiction," 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(c) (1982), we see no sound basis for believing that the principle established is not equally applicable to the present version of that section. See, e.g., In re Shell Oil Co., 932 F.2d 1518, 1519-21 (5th Cir.1991) (, )cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 914, 116 L.Ed.2d 814 (1992); Air-Shields, Inc. v.
procedural grounds more than 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal exceeded court's authority); 14A C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 3739, at 166 (Supp.1993) ().
Fullam, 891 F.2d at 66 (same).
Reading the present Secs. 1447(c) and (d) together, we conclude that an order granting remand based either on a timely motion asserting a procedural defect or on a lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction is not reviewable. However, an order remanding on procedural grounds either upon an untimely motion or sua sponte more than 30 days after removal, since such an order is not authorized by Sec. 1447(c), is reviewable.
Finally, we note that because an order remanding a removed action is not a final judgment, the proper vehicle for review is normally mandamus, not appeal. See Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. at 352-53, 96 S.Ct. at 593-94. This Court has discretion, however, to treat a notice of appeal as a petition for mandamus. See, e.g., Corcoran v. Ardra Insurance Co., 842 F.2d 31, 35 (2d Cir.1988).
Hamilton commenced the present action pro se in Connecticut Superior Court in March 1982. In August 1989, he removed the action to federal court; he was allowed to file an amended removal petition in January 1990. Aetna made no motion for a remand to state court, but moved to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in June 1992. The district court, in an endorsed order dated July 22, 1992,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Parsons v. Velasquez
...not remove an action, and their consent is not required for removal if all the true defendants consent. See Hamilton v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 5 F.3d 642, 643-44 (2d Cir. 1993) ; Wiatt v. State Farm Ins. Co., 560 F. Supp. 2d 1068, 1078-79 (D.N.M. 2007) (Browning, J.). "A plaintiff objecting......
-
Pierpoint v. Barnes, 925
...amendment. LaFarge Coppee v. Venezolana De Cementos, S.A.C.A., C.A., 31 F.3d 70, 71-72 (2d Cir.1994); Hamilton v. Aetna Life and Casualty Co., 5 F.3d 642, 644 (2d Cir.1993) (per curiam), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1130, 114 S.Ct. 1100, 127 L.Ed.2d 413 (1994). Thus, appellate review is now prohi......
-
Spielman v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Docket No. 01-9189.
...construed a pre-1988 version of Section 1447(c) with a slightly different remand standard, we ruled in Hamilton v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 5 F.3d 642 (2d Cir.1993) (per curiam), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1130, 114 S.Ct. 1100, 127 L.Ed.2d 413 (1994), that "we see no sound basis for believing tha......
-
In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ("Mtbe")
...Concored Fin. Corp. v. Value Line, Inc., No. 03 Civ. 8020, 2004 WL 287658 (S.D.N.Y. Feb.11, 2004). See also Hamilton v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 5 F.3d 642, 643 (2d Cir.1993) (under [28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) all motions for remand — except those based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction — m......
-
Table of Cases
...2006), §§3:135, 14:202 HamiltonAir Company, Inc. v. Gould , 17 Misc3d 222 (Civ Ct NY Co 2007), §6:160 Hamilton v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co ., 5 F3d 642 (2d Cir 1993), §8:581 Hamlin v. Mensch , 205 AD2d 452, 613 NYS2d 891 (1st Dept 1994), §§28:82, 28:112, 28:113 Hammack v. Walt Miller Quality Re......
-
Forum Selection: Venue and Removal
...to remand sua sponte when a party has not filed a motion to remand within 30 days of removal. [ Hamilton v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co. , 5 F3d 642 (2d Cir 1993).] The Second Circuit, however, has not addressed whether a district court may remand sua sponte when a party has filed a motion within ......
-
Forum Selection: Venue and Removal
...to remand sua sponte when a party has not filed a motion to remand within 30 days of removal. [ Hamilton v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co. , 5 F3d 642 (2d Cir 1993).] The Second Circuit, however, has not addressed whether a district court may remand sua sponte when a party has filed a motion within ......
-
Forum Selection: Venue and Removal
...to remand sua sponte when a party has not filed a motion to remand within 30 days of removal. [ Hamilton v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co. , 5 F3d 642 (2d Cir 1993).] The Second Circuit, however, has not addressed whether a district court may remand sua sponte when a party has filed a motion within ......