United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-1556

___________

Michael Vincent, *

*

 Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern *

Railroad Corporation, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 20, 1999

Filed: January 21, 2000

___________

Before MCMILLIAN, HEANEY, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit

Judges.

___________

HEANEY, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff, Michael Vincent (Vincent), an employee of Dakota, Minnesota &

Eastern Railroad Corporation (DM&E), filed suit against DM&E in South Dakota state

court seeking damages for breach of contract and promissory estoppel arising from the

terms of his employment. DM&E removed the action to the district court, contending

that federal jurisdiction existed under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) (1999), because Vincent's

claims were governed by the Railway Labor Act (RLA), 45 U.S.C. §§ 151-188 (1999).
-2-

Vincent filed a timely motion to remand his case to state court, claiming that the district

court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The district court granted Vincent's motion

and this appeal followed. Because we lack jurisdiction to review this decision, we

dismiss this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d).

Congress has placed significant restrictions on the power of appellate courts to

review district court orders remanding cases to state court. See Things Remembered,

Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 127 (1995). If a district court's remand order is based

on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1447(c), “a court of appeals

lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal of the remand order.” Id. at 127-28. Thus,

when remand is based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the order must stand

“whether erroneous or not and whether review is sought by appeal or by extraordinary

writ.” Thermtron Prod., Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 343 (1976); see also

Transit Cas. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, 119 F.3d 619, 623 (8th

Cir. 1997).

Although the district court's order does not specifically cite §1447(c) as its basis

for remand, this fact is not dispositive. We are required to determine by independent

review the actual grounds for the district court's remand order. See Transit Cas. Co.,

119 F.3d at 624 (citing Mangold v. Analytic Servs., Inc., 77 F.3d 1442, 1450 (4th Cir.

1996)). We are convinced after reading the district court's remand order and supporting

memorandum that its decision was based upon a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

See Vincent v. Dakota, Minn. & E. R.R. Corp., No. Civ. 98-4183 (D.S.D. Jan. 29,

1999) (Remand Order). The district court recognized that the sole jurisdictional issue

before it was whether the RLA “confers federal [subject matter] jurisdiction over

Vincent's state law claims.” (Remand Order at 1.) It further recognized that if the RLA

did not preempt Vincent's claims, no subject matter jurisdiction would exist, and

therefore remand would be required. (See id. at 6.) Because the only basis for remand

discussed by the district court was whether it had subject matter jurisdiction over

Vincent's claim, it is clear that its remand order was based on § 1447(c). See 28
-3-

U.S.C. 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court

lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”).

DM&E concedes that “the District Court's remand order indicated the District

Court had no subject matter jurisdiction.” (Appellant's Reply Br. at 6.) Despite the

well-settled law against appellate review of § 1447(c) remand orders, DM&E requests

review, contending that the district court's order effectively settled the substantive issue

of preemption, barring its use of preemption as a defense in state court. We disagree.

We repeat our statement in Transit Cas. Co. that “because the district court remanded

for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, it lacked jurisdiction to make any substantive

rulings, and, thus, ‘no rulings of the federal court have any preclusive effect on the

substantive matters before the state court.’” 119 F.3d at 624 (quoting Whitman v.

Raley's Inc., 886 F.2d 1177, 1182 (9th Cir. 1989)); accord Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams,

482 U.S. 386, 399 n.13 (1987) (declining to consider merits of defendant's preemption

arguments where case was remanded for lack of federal jurisdiction).

 DM&E directs us to In re Life Insurance Co. of North America, 857 F.2d 1190

(8th Cir. 1988) (LINA), as support for its proposition that the district court's findings

will be treated as res judicata with regard to substantive issues in state court. It is true

that when a district court's findings incident to its remand order are treated as

substantive rulings, they have a preclusive effect. See LINA, 857 F.2d at 1193. If that

were the case here, we would be free to review the district court's decision. See id.

However, that is not the case. We have addressed this issue before:

Several circuits have read [LINA] as holding that a district court's findings

incident to an order of remand have a preclusive effect on the state court,

and they have explicitly rejected that holding. Those courts have failed

to recognize, however, that the district court in [LINA] did not issue its

remand order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), but rather exercised its

discretionary power to remand a pendent state law claim after all federal

claims had been eliminated. Because the district court had pendent
-4-

jurisdiction over the remanded state law claim, its adjudication of the

preemption issue [of that claim] was binding on all other courts, subject

only to the appellate process.

Transit Cas. Co., 119 F.3d at 624 n.10 (citations omitted). Because the remand in this

case was issued pursuant to §1447(c), LINA is inapposite and provides us no authority

to review the district court's remand order.

For the above stated reasons, DM&E's appeal is dismissed pursuant to 28

U.S.C.§ 1447(d).

A true copy.

Attest.

 CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.