Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-04091/USCOURTS-ca10-15-04091-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

RODNEY FLAHAUT; MARIANNE 

FLAHAUT, 

 Plaintiff Counter Defendants –

 Appellees,

v.

JAMIS M. JOHNSON, 

 Defendant on Counterclaim Third- 

 Party Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

BANK OF AMERICA NA, 

 Defendant Crossclaimant - Appellee,

v.

DM JOHNSON AND ASSOCIATES, 

Trustee; DANELLE JOHNSON; DM 

JOHNSON FAMILY TRUST; JUAN 

EVERESTE LLC; MICHAEL L. 

WEILENMANN; RELIABLE 

SOLUTIONS, 

 Defendants Cross Defendants,

and

FIRST AMERICAN TITLE; BROOK 

GARDNER; SCOTT THORLEY; 

SPENCER BALL; SETH RICHMOND; 

WASATCH FRONT REGIONAL 

No. 15-4091

(D.C. No. 2:14-CV-00726-TS)

(D. Utah)

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 5, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-4091 Document: 01019471146 Date Filed: 08/05/2015 Page: 1 
2

MULTIPLE LISTING SERVICE; 

ZILLOW, 

 Third-Party Defendants - Appellees.

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before KELLY, GORSUCH, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

This court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal.

The plaintiffs filed this action in Utah state court, asserting claims for reformation, 

breach of warranty deed covenants, and quiet title. More than a year after the complaint 

was filed, one of the individual defendants, Jamis Johnson, filed a notice of removal. The 

district court remanded to the Utah state court, concluding that there was no basis for 

federal jurisdiction. 

A remand order based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not appealable. See

28 § 1447(d) (providing that, with an exception not applicable here, “[a]n order 

remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on 

appeal or otherwise.”); Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Services, 551 U.S. 224, 232 

(2007) (“We hold that when a district court remands a properly removed case because it 

nonetheless lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the remand is ... shielded from review by § 

1447(d).”); Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 547 U.S. 633, 640 (2006) (“[W]e have 

relentlessly repeated that ‘any remand order issued on the grounds specified in § 1447(c) 

[is immunized from all forms of appellate review], whether or not that order might be 

deemed erroneous by an appellate court.’”) (quoting Thermtron Products, Inc. v. 

Appellate Case: 15-4091 Document: 01019471146 Date Filed: 08/05/2015 Page: 2 
3

Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 351 (1976)); Flores v. Long, 110 F.3d 730, 732, 733 (10th 

Cir. 1997) (holding that, even if the district court “employed erroneous principles in 

concluding that it was without jurisdiction,” there is no appellate jurisdiction to review a 

remand order entered in a removed case which is “based to a fair degree upon the court’s 

finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case”) (internal quotes 

omitted). See also Western Insurance Co. v. A and H Insurance, Inc., 784 F.3d 725, 729 

(10th Cir. 2015) (“when a district court unambiguously invokes lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction, we are permitted only to determine whether that was a ‘plausible 

rationale.’”) (quoting Moody v. Great Western Railway Co., 536 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th 

Cir. 2008). 

In addition to arguing that the district court erred, and that therefore this court has 

jurisdiction, a meritless proposition in light of the above-cites authorities, Mr. Johnson 

claims that this court has jurisdiction to review the district court’s award of attorney fees. 

However, that award is not final and appealable at this time because the district court did 

not set forth a sum certain. See American Soda v. US Filter, 428 F.3d 921, 924 (10th Cir. 

2005) (citing to Phelps v. Washburn University, 807 F.2d 153, 154 (10th Cir. 1986)).

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED. 

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Ellen Rich Reiter

 Jurisdictional Attorney

Appellate Case: 15-4091 Document: 01019471146 Date Filed: 08/05/2015 Page: 3