Bank of America NA v. Johnson Koola

Fourth Circuit

Bank of America NA v. Johnson Koola

691 F. App'x 128

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 6, 2017

Docket17-1013

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 691 F. App'x 128 (Bank of America NA v. Johnson Koola) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bank of America NA v. Johnson Koola, 691 F. App'x 128 (4th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Johnson D. Koola seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and remanding this case to the South Carolina Court of Appeals, from which it was removed. Bank of America has moved to dismiss the appeal.

Generally, “[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. § 1447(d) (2012). The Supreme Court has instructed that “§ 1447(d) must be read in pari materia with [28 U.S.C.] § 1447(c), so that only remands based on grounds specified in § 1447(c) are immune from review under § 1447(d).” Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 127, 116 S.Ct. 494, 133 L.Ed.2d 461 (1995). Thus, § 1447(d)

is tightly circumscribed to cover only remand orders within the scope of ... § 1447(c), based on (1) a district court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction or (2) a defect in removal other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction that was raised by the motion of a party within 30 days after the notice of removal was filed.

Doe v. Blair, 819 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Whether a district court’s remand order is reviewable under § 1447(d) is not determined by whether the order explicitly cites § 1447(c) or not.” Borneman v. United States, 213 F.3d 819, 824 (4th Cir. 2000).

Bank of America moved to remand within 30 days of Koola’s notice of removal, and *129 the district court remanded on the basis that removal was untimely. The district court also concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Under the cited authorities, we are without jurisdiction to review the remand order. We therefore grant Bank of America’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Johnson D. Koola seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and remanding this case to the South Carolina Court of Appeals, from which it was removed. Bank of America has moved to dismiss the appeal.

Generally, “[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. § 1447(d) (2012). The Supreme Court has instructed that “§ 1447(d) must be read in pari materia with [28 U.S.C.] § 1447(c), so that only remands based on grounds specified in § 1447(c) are immune from review under § 1447(d).” Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 127, 116 S.Ct. 494, 133 L.Ed.2d 461 (1995). Thus, § 1447(d)

is tightly circumscribed to cover only remand orders within the scope of ... § 1447(c), based on (1) a district court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction or (2) a defect in removal other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction that was raised by the motion of a party within 30 days after the notice of removal was filed.

Doe v. Blair, 819 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Whether a district court’s remand order is reviewable under § 1447(d) is not determined by whether the order explicitly cites § 1447(c) or not.” Borneman v. United States, 213 F.3d 819, 824 (4th Cir. 2000).

Bank of America moved to remand within 30 days of Koola’s notice of removal, and *129 the district court remanded on the basis that removal was untimely. The district court also concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Under the cited authorities, we are without jurisdiction to review the remand order. We therefore grant Bank of America’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

691 F. App'x 128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-of-america-na-v-johnson-koola-ca4-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack