Alleghany Corporation v. United States District Court for the Central District of California, and Frank M. Singer, Real Party in Interest

Ninth Circuit

Alleghany Corporation v. United States District Court for the Central District of California, and Frank M. Singer, Real Party in Interest

881 F.2d 777, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 11381, 1989 WL 86446

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided August 4, 1989·No. 89-70270·Published

Opinion

ORDER

The petition for writ of mandamus, seeking review of the district court’s order remanding this action to state court, is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); Schmitt v. Insurance Co. of North America, 845 F.2d 1546, 1549 (9th Cir.1988). The district court remanded this action on the ground that the petitioner had not complied with the statutory time limitations governing removal set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).

28 U.S.C. section 1447(d), however, bars appellate review of orders remanding a case to state court unless the order is based on a ground “wholly different” from the grounds authorized by the removal statute. Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 344, 96 S.Ct. 584, 589, 46 L.Ed.2d 542 (1976). A remand order based on a petitioner’s failure to comply with section 1446(b)’s time limitation is not based on a ground “wholly different” from the grounds for remand authorized by section 1447(c). Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

The petition for writ of mandamus, seeking review of the district court’s order remanding this action to state court, is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); Schmitt v. Insurance Co. of North America, 845 F.2d 1546, 1549 (9th Cir.1988). The district court remanded this action on the ground that the petitioner had not complied with the statutory time limitations governing removal set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).

28 U.S.C. section 1447(d), however, bars appellate review of orders remanding a case to state court unless the order is based on a ground “wholly different” from the grounds authorized by the removal statute. Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 344, 96 S.Ct. 584, 589, 46 L.Ed.2d 542 (1976). A remand order based on a petitioner’s failure to comply with section 1446(b)’s time limitation is not based on a ground “wholly different” from the grounds for remand authorized by section 1447(c). Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Alleghany Corporation v. United States District Court for the Central District of California, and Frank M. Singer, Real Party in Interest, 881 F.2d 777, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 11381, 1989 WL 86446 (9th Cir. 1989).

Pincite

881 F.2d 777 (Alleghany Corporation v. United States District Court for the Central District of California, and Frank M. Singer, Real Party in Interest) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related