Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-08029/USCOURTS-ca10-16-08029-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

GLOBAL E, LLC, d/b/a Pioneer Park 

MHC, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

MARTI LUNDAHL; HOLLIE TELFORD, 

 Defendants - Appellants. 

No. 16-8029 

(D.C. No. 2:15-CV-00188-ABJ) 

(D. Wyo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER

_________________________________ 

Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, BRISCOE and LUCERO, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

This court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. Marti Lundahl and Holli Telford (the 

Lundahls) attempted to remove a state eviction action brought by Global E, LLC to 

federal district court. The district court concluded it lacked jurisdiction and remanded the 

state eviction action to state court. (This court notes that the district court did not open a 

new proceeding when the Lundahls filed their notice of removal.) 

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 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

April 14, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-8029 Document: 01019603075 Date Filed: 04/14/2016 Page: 1 
2 

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. 

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). 

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED. 

Entered for the Court 

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk 

by: Ellen Rich Reiter 

 Jurisdictional Attorney 

Appellate Case: 16-8029 Document: 01019603075 Date Filed: 04/14/2016 Page: 2