Kennedy v. Lubar

• Decision Date: 17 December 2001
• Docket Number: No. 00-1507,00-1507
• Citation: 273 F.3d 1293
• Parties: (10th Cir. 2001) LISA T. KENNEDY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CLEMENCE LUBAR, Defendant-Appellant
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

Page 1293

273 F.3d 1293 (10th Cir. 2001)

LISA T. KENNEDY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CLEMENCE LUBAR, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-1507

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT

December 17, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO (D.C. No. 00-M-2301)

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

[Copyrighted Material Omitted] Andrew W. Volin, Sherman & Howard, Denver, Colorado (Raymond M. Deeny, Sherman & Howard, Colorado Springs, Colorado, with him on the briefs), for Defendant-Appellant.

Curtis L. Kennedy, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before TACHA, Chief Circuit Judge, and McKAY and STEPHEN H. ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

STEPHEN H. ANDERSON, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-Appellee Lisa T. Kennedy brought suit against Defendant-Appellant Clemence Lubar in Colorado state court, asserting state common law claims for "[t]ortious [i]nterference with [e]mployment [r]elations" and tortious interference with "[p]rospective [e]mployment [r]elations." Compl. at 14, App. to Br. of Def.-Appellant ("App.") at 17. Kennedy was employed as a part-time pharmacist in Store 100 of the King Soopers chain of grocery stores, and Lubar was her pharmacy manager. Kennedy alleges that Lubar engaged in intentional, malicious and willful misconduct which allegedly caused her termination from Store 100 and her inability to obtain subsequent employment at other King Soopers stores.

Lubar removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado based on her assertion that Kennedy's state law claims were pre-empted by 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"), 29 U.S.C. 185(a), and that the federal district court therefore had original subject matter jurisdiction over Kennedy's claims. Notice of Removal at 4 and 8, App. at 23-24. Thereafter, Lubar filed a motion to dismiss Kennedy's state law claims, also on the basis of federal preemption under 301. Mot. to Dismiss at 3 and 19, App. at 49 and 60.

Kennedy responded with a motion for remand, asserting that the federal district court lacked jurisdiction over her state law claims because they were not pre-empted by 301. Mot. for Remand at 1 and 8, App. at 137 and 144. The district court agreed and remanded the case, stating as follows:

The defendant filed a notice of removal on November 22, 2000, asserting that the claims are pre-empted by the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 185. The plaintiff filed a motion for remand on November 28, 2000. Upon careful review of the allegations of the complaint, it is clear that these are tort claims against an individual and not against the employer for a violation of any collective bargaining agreement or under any federal law.

Order of Remand at 1, App. at 146.

Thereafter, Lubar simultaneously filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus and a Notice of Appeal. A two-judge panel of this court denied Lubar's Petition for Writ of Mandamus, holding that although this court had jurisdiction to review the district court's remand, the appropriate vehicle for redress was a direct appeal. In re Clemence Lubar, No. 00-1504, Order at 2 (10th Cir. Jan. 18, 2001), App. at 173. On appeal, Lubar asks this court to vacate the district court's Order of Remand, and to instruct the district court to dismiss Kennedy's claims with prejudice on the basis of federal pre-emption under 301. Br. of Def.-Appellant at 30. Although Lubar has made a very strong case for pre-emption, we must nonetheless dismiss the appeal because 28 U.S.C. 1447(d) absolutely precludes us from reviewing the district court's Order of Remand.¹

28 U.S.C. 1447(d) states that, subject to certain exceptions not applicable here, "[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise. . . ." This strong statutory limitation on appellate review applies, however, only to remands based on 28 U.S.C. 1447(c). Albertson's, Inc. v. Carrigan, 982 F.2d 1478, 1479-80 (10th Cir. 1993). See also Dalrymple v. Grand River Dam Auth., 145 F.3d 1180, 1184 (10th Cir. 1998). Section 1447(c) specifically allows district courts to order remand if there has been a "defect in removal procedure," or if it determines, at any time prior to final judgment, that it "lacks subject matter jurisdiction." If a district court orders remand on either of these grounds, 1447(d) absolutely prohibits appellate review of the order, and we adhere firmly to this prohibition even where we believe that the district court was plainly incorrect. Archuleta v. Lacuesta, 131 F.3d 1359, 1363 (10th Cir. 1997).

In determining whether or not a district court remanded the case on the grounds provided in 1447(c), "we must independently review the record to determine the actual grounds upon which the district court believed it was empowered to remand." Dalrymple, 145 F.3d at 1184. "An explicit reference to 1447(c) does not automatically render a remand order non-reviewable. . . . Nor does the absence of such a reference automatically confer appellate jurisdiction over a remand order." Id. (citation omitted). Thus, we must consider a district court's order of remand as a whole, reviewing it in its entirety and considering the motions and issues actually before the district court.

Applying these standards to the current case, it is clear that the district court's sole basis for ordering remand was its determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Kennedy's state law claims. Although the district court did not expressly use the term "subject matter jurisdiction" in its Order of Remand, the only fair reading of that order is that the district court's decision was based entirely on its determination that Kennedy's state tort claims were not pre-empted by 301, and that, as such, there was no basis for the court to exercise jurisdiction over her lawsuit. The district court specifically found that Kennedy's claims against her supervisor, as an individual, did not allege "a violation of any collective bargaining agreement or under any federal law." Order of Remand at 1, App. at 146 (emphasis added). Implicit in this finding is a determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Kennedy's claims. Moreover, Kennedy's motion for remand itself asserted that remand was required only because the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction where her state law claims were not pre-empted by 301.²

A complete and accurate reading of the Order of Remand and the record before us makes it perfectly clear that the district court's order

clearly [did] not reflect the typical nonjurisdictional determination involving a discretionary remand of supplementary or pendent claims, venue, abstention, comity or the waiver of opportunity to challenge procedurally irregular removal. Instead, the order[] address[ed] key issues directly related to whether the district court could have exercised subject matter jurisdiction over the case[]the presence of a federal question on the face of the plaintiffs' complaint[] and/or the presence of a federal question in the form of a colorable federal . . . defense.

Dalrymple, 145 F.3d at 1185. As such, we conclude that the district court's Order of Remand falls squarely within the provisions of 1447(c), and that 1447(d) precludes us from reviewing that order on appeal.

At oral argument, however, Lubar asserted that we should not apply the prohibitions of 1447(d) in this case, arguing that principles of "law of the case" and waiver preclude us from dismissing her appeal. We address each of Lubar's contentions in turn.

Lubar's first contention is that because the mandamus panel already addressed the discrete issue of appellate jurisdiction in this case, basic "law of the case" principles preclude us from revisiting it on appeal. Although we recognize that the mandamus panel already decided that we could exercise jurisdiction over Lubar's appeal, this decision was based entirely on its erroneous finding that the district court's remand order was not grounded in 1447(c),³ and we disagree with Lubar's position that "law of the case" principles prevent us from revisiting the jurisdictional question.

"'[T]he law of the case doctrine posits that when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.'" McIlravy v. Kerr-McGee Coal Corp., 204 F.3d 1031, 1034 (10th Cir. 2000) (quoting United States v. Monsisvais, 946 F.2d 114, 115 (10th Cir. 1991)) (further quotations omitted). "Law of the case rules have developed to maintain consistency and avoid reconsideration of matters once decided during the course of a single continuing lawsuit," 18 Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure: Jurisdiction 4478, at 788 (1981) ("Wright & Miller"). Such rules are commonly applied to prevent an appellate court from revisiting or reconsidering "matters resolved on a prior appeal," and it is not uncommon for "appellate court . . . [to] adhere[] to prior rulings as the law of the case, at times despite substantial reservations as to the correctness of the ruling." Id.

However, law of the case principles apply only to decisions on the actual merits. Wilmer v. Board of Cty. Comm'rs, 69 F.3d 406, 409 (10th Cir. 1995) ("Law of the case principles do not bar a district court from acting unless an appellate decision has issued on the merits of the claim sought to be precluded.") (quotations omitted). See also Wright & Miller 4435, at 329. Because orders denying a petition for mandamus are most frequently denied as a result of the special limitations inherent in the writ itself, and not on the merits, such denials are not ordinarily given "law of the case" effect, and the parties are not precluded from raising the issue in a subsequent appeal.⁴ United States v. Dean, 752 F.2d 535, 541 (11th Cir. 1985). "Law of the case" principles are typically applied only to those mandamus decisions actually deciding the case on the...