Berkeley Lake LL, LLC v. Nyasha Fisher

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: March 11, 2025
• Docket: 24-12570
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 24-12570 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 03/11/2025 Page: 1 of 2

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-12570 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

BERKELEY LAKE LL, LLC, d.b.a. Rosemont Berkeley Lake, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus NYASHA FISHER,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia USCA11 Case: 24-12570 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 03/11/2025 Page: 2 of 2

2 Opinion of the Court 24-12570

D.C. Docket No. 1:24-cv-03208-SCJ ____________________

Before BRANCH, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Nyasha Fisher appeals from the district court’s July 24, 2024, order remanding the case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A jurisdictional question asked whether the remand order is reviewable. Fisher responds that the order is appealable. We conclude that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal be- cause the remand order is unreviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). The district court concluded that remand was necessary because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and we may not review that con- clusion even if it is erroneous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), (d); New v. Sports & Recreation, Inc., 114 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (11th Cir. 1997); Kircher v. Putnam Funds Tr., 547 U.S. 633, 642 (2006). The remand order is not otherwise reviewable because the district court did not remand based on a procedural defect without waiting for a party’s motion, and Fisher did not remove the case under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442 or 1443. See Corp. Mgmt. Advisors, Inc. v. Artjen Complexus, Inc., 561 F.3d 1294, 1296-97 (11th Cir. 2009); Overlook Gardens Props., LLC v. ORIX USA, L.P., 927 F.3d 1194, 1202 (11th Cir. 2019); 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 593 U.S. 230, 238 (2021). Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdic- tion. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.