Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02572/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02572-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, Chief Judge, United States District

Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2572

___________

Alice Roberts; Kevin Hales; Christy *

Millsap; Tim Millsap, Individually and *

on behalf of all other natural persons *

similarly situated, *

*

Appellees, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the 

BJC Health System, doing business as * Eastern District of Missouri.

BJC Healthcare; Missouri Baptist *

Medical Center; Sisters of Mercy *

Health System; St. John’s Mercy Health *

System, doing business as St. John’s *

Mercy Medical Center; Reconstructive *

and Microsurgery Associates, Inc., *

*

Appellants. * 

___________

 Submitted: March 16, 2006

 Filed: June 21, 2006 

___________

Before WOLLMAN and RILEY, Circuit Judges, and ROSENBAUM,1

 District

Judge. 

___________

Appellate Case: 05-2572 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2006 Entry ID: 2058889
2

The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

-2-

RILEY, Circuit Judge.

Alice Roberts, Kevin Hales, Christy Millsap, and Tim Millsap (collectively

Appellees) filed a putative class action in Missouri state court against BJC Health

System, doing business as BJC Healthcare; Missouri Baptist Medical Center; Sisters

of Mercy Health System; St. John’s Mercy Health System, doing business as St.

John’s Mercy Medical Center; and Reconstructive and Microsurgery Associates, Inc.

(RMA) (collectively Appellants), alleging Appellants overcharged for certain medical

procedures. Appellants removed the case to federal court based on federal question

subject matter jurisdiction, claiming the Employee Retirement Income Security Act

(ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461, completely preempted Appellees’ claims. The

district court2

 remanded the matter back to state court for lack of federal question

subject matter jurisdiction. Appellants appeal. Because 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) bars

appellate review of remand orders based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, we

dismiss the appeal. 

I. BACKGROUND

Appellees filed this action in Missouri state court, alleging RMA “miscoded”

certain medical procedures, the other Appellants knew of or were involved in this

miscoding, and as a result Appellants overcharged Appellees. After removing the

action to federal court, Appellants moved to dismiss, claiming Appellees lacked

standing because Appellees did not allege they actually paid for any of the medical

procedures. Appellees moved to remand the case back to the Missouri state court,

contending ERISA did not preempt their claims. 

The district court concluded Appellees lacked standing because they had not

sustained an injury in fact, and accordingly, the court lacked subject matter

Appellate Case: 05-2572 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2006 Entry ID: 2058889
-3-

jurisdiction. Based on this conclusion, the district court dismissed the case without

prejudice and denied Appellees’ motion to remand as moot. Upon Appellees’ motion

to amend the court’s order and judgment, the district court (1) clarified it never made

a determination regarding whether ERISA preempted Appellees’ claims, and

(2) vacated its previous order and remanded the case back to state court for lack of

federal question subject matter jurisdiction. 

Appellants appeal the district court’s remand order, arguing that after the

district court determined Appellees lacked standing, the court should have dismissed

the case without prejudice, as the court did in its first order, rather than modifying its

opinion and remanding the case. Appellees move to strike or dismiss the appeal,

arguing that because the district court remanded the case for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction, this court cannot review the district court’s remand order. 

II. DISCUSSION

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) and (d) and our case law precedent, we cannot

review the district court’s remand order. Because Appellees lacked standing, the

district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Faibisch v. Univ. of Minn., 304 F.3d

797, 801 (8th Cir. 2002) (holding “if a plaintiff lacks standing, the district court has

no subject matter jurisdiction” (citation omitted)). “If at any time before final

judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case

shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). When a district court remands a case based

on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction under section 1447(c), “a court of appeals lacks

jurisdiction to entertain an appeal of the remand order.” Things Remembered, Inc. v.

Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 127-28 (1995); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). Thus, when a

case is remanded under section 1447(c), the remand order must stand “whether

erroneous or not and whether review is sought by appeal or by extraordinary writ.”

Thermtron Prods., Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 343 (1976), overruled on

other grounds by Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 714-15 (1996); see

also Transit Cas. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 119 F.3d 619, 623

Appellate Case: 05-2572 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/21/2006 Entry ID: 2058889
3

We note, however, if this were a genuine Catch-22 holding, we may not have

explained our decision:

“‘What right do you have?’ the girls said. ‘Catch-22,’ the men said. All

they kept saying was ‘Catch-22, Catch-22.’ What does it mean, Catch22? What is Catch-22?”

“Didn’t they show it to you?” Yossarian demanded, stamping about in

anger and distress. “Didn’t you even make them read it?”

“They don’t have to show us Catch-22,” the old woman answered. “The

law says they don’t have to.”

“What law says they don’t have to?”

“Catch-22.”

Joseph Heller, Catch-22 375 (Simon & Schuster 1999) (1961).

-4-

(8th Cir. 1997). Finally, we note that although arising in a different context than the

case before us, the Supreme Court applied similar reasoning in its recent decision in

Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, No. 05-409, 2006 WL 1640102, at *9 (U.S. June 15,

2006) (holding where the district court remanded the removed action to state court for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards

Act of 1998, the district court’s remand order is unreviewable under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1447(d)). 

We recognize our holding today creates a potential Catch-22 for the parties: the

district court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because

Appellees failed to allege Article III standing, and upon remand, the state court might

dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction because of ERISA preemption.3

 The parties

may find themselves unable to proceed in either federal or state court. One remedy

to this dilemma is including a class member in the case who sustained an injury in

fact. 

Appellate Case: 05-2572 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/21/2006 Entry ID: 2058889
-5-

III. CONCLUSION

We grant Appellees’ motion and dismiss this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1447(d) for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2572 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/21/2006 Entry ID: 2058889