Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02498/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02498-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2498

___________

Sharon R. Whittley; *

Tracy Annette Whittley, *

*

Appellees, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Burlington Northern and Santa Fe *

Railroad Company; Charles S. Nitsch, *

*

Appellants. *

___________

Submitted: January 10, 2005

Filed: February 1, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co. (BNSF) appeals the district

court's1

 grant of Sharon R. Whittley and Tracy Annette Whittley’s (the Whittleys)

motion to remand to state court based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. BNSF

argues that the district court should have found fraudulent joinder and that it

improperly failed to consider the affidavits that BNSF submitted to prove that

Appellate Case: 04-2498 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/01/2005 Entry ID: 1861806 
-2-

defendant Charles S. Nitsch, a citizen of Missouri, was improperly joined. We

conclude that we do not have jurisdiction to consider the appeal.

The Whittleys, Missouri citizens, sued BNSF and Nitsch in Missouri state court

for the wrongful death of Jesse Whittley, Jr., resulting from a collision at a grade

crossing in rural Missouri. BNSF removed the case to federal district court. The

Whittleys moved to remand, claiming that there was not complete diversity and

therefore no subject matter jurisdiction. BNSF filed affidavits that it claims establish

that Nitsch was improperly joined because he was not the train master responsible

for the operation of trains on the relevant section of track at the time of the accident

and therefore could not be a responsible party. The district court declined to consider

the affidavits, found that Nitsch had not been fraudulently joined, concluded that

complete diversity therefore did not exist, and granted the motion to remand for lack

of jurisdiction. 

We may not review a district court’s decision to remand to state court for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction, even if erroneous. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); see also Filla

v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 336 F.3d 806, 809 (8th Cir. 2003); Transit Cas. Co. v.

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 119 F.3d 619, 623 (8th Cir. 1997). An

appellate court may review a district court’s decision to remand only if (1) the case

is a statutorily excepted civil rights case, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), or (2) the decision to

remand is based on grounds other than subject matter jurisdiction or defects in

removal procedure. See Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 711-12

(1996) (finding that an abstention-based remand order is appealable because “only

remands based on grounds specified in § 1447(c) are immune from review under §

1447(d).” (internal quotation omitted)); Thermtron Prods., Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423

U.S. 336, 343-45 (1976) (finding that the district court remanded principally because

it had a crowded docket, a ground not authorized by § 1447(c) and that its order was

therefore appealable). Although we may independently review the record for the

limited purpose of determining “the actual ground or basis upon which the district

Appellate Case: 04-2498 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/01/2005 Entry ID: 1861806 
-3-

court considered it was empowered to remand,” see Transit Cas. Co., 119 F.3d at 624,

we need not do so in this case because it is undisputed that the district court remanded

the case because it believed that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We therefore

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2498 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/01/2005 Entry ID: 1861806