Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-03258/USCOURTS-ca10-15-03258-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ingrid Herwick
Appellant
Robert S. Herwick
Appellant
Virginia L. Stilley
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

VIRGINIA L. STILLEY, d/b/a Ashwood 

Mobile Home Park, Inc., 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROBERT S. HERWICK; INGRID 

HERWICK, 

 Defendants - Appellants.

No. 15-3258

(D.C. No. 5:15-CV-04934-SAC-KGS)

(D. Kan.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before KELLY, HOLMES, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

The pro se defendants Robert Herwick and Ingrid Herwick appeal the district 

court’s order remanding the underlying case to Kansas state court. After the appeal was 

opened, the clerk’s office notified the appellants that the appeal might be subject to 

summary disposition for lack of appellate jurisdiction and directed the appellants to file a 

memorandum brief addressing the potentially dispositive jurisdictional issue. See 10th 

Cir. R. 27.2(B). The appellants filed a memorandum brief and a notice of challenge to the 

constitutionality of various federal and Kansas state statutes. After careful review of the 

appellant’s arguments, the record, and applicable law, we dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

November 19, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-3258 Document: 01019526321 Date Filed: 11/19/2015 Page: 1 
2

Our threshold inquiry is whether we have jurisdiction to consider this appeal. 

Flores v. Long, 110 F.3d 730, 731 (10th Cir. 1997). Our authority to review a remand 

order is governed by federal statute. As a general matter, “[a]n order remanding a case to 

the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise . . .” 

28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). The prohibition on appellate review is not as broad as it appears, 

however. Appellate review is barred when the remand order being appealed was 

predicated on one of the grounds enumerated in § 1447(c) – i.e., lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction or a defect in the removal procedure. Dalrymple v. Grand River Dam 

Authority, 145 F.3d 1180, 1184 (10th Cir. 1998) (citing Things Remembered, Inc. v. 

Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 127-28 (1995) and Thermatron Products v. Hermansdorfer, 423 

U.S. 336, 345-46 (1976)).

In this case, the district court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction 

on both diversity and federal question grounds. First, the district court concluded that the 

original complaint did not establish that the amount in controversy was sufficient to 

satisfy the diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The court further decided that the 

Herwicks’ attempt to increase the amount in controversy by filing counterclaims against 

the plaintiff could not be counted. See Lonnquist v. J.C. Penney Co., 421 F.2d 597, 599 

(10th Cir.1970) (stating that amount in controversy decided on date of removal). Second, 

the district court decided that the Herwicks’ counterclaims asserting violations of their 

federal rights were insufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction. Counterclaims 

generally cannot serve as a basis for federal jurisdiction for a removed case. Topeka 

Housing Authority v. Johnson, 404 F.3d 1245, 1248 (10th Cir. 2005). The district court’s 

Appellate Case: 15-3258 Document: 01019526321 Date Filed: 11/19/2015 Page: 2 
3

well-explained conclusion that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction is sufficient to end our 

inquiry into whether we have authority to review the district court’s order. See Kennedy 

v. Lubar, 273 F.3d 1293, 1297 (10th Cir. 2001) (declaring that appellate review is barred 

even if appellate court might believe district court erred). We conclude that we do not.

This appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Any other relief requested by the 

Herwicks in their filings in this court is denied as moot.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lara Smith

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 15-3258 Document: 01019526321 Date Filed: 11/19/2015 Page: 3