# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 8- 28 41

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Ada m Vass eu r
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Mat th ew F. So well ; J oe L. Jarv is , III

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s
TEI Con st ru ct io n S erv ic es , Inc

. ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Sp rin gf ie ld

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Ju ne 11 , 20 19 Fi le d: Ju ly 19, 2 01 9

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and STRAS, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge

.TEI Co ns tru ct io n Serv ic es , In c. (“ TE I ” ) ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r 1

rem an di ng th e cas e to st at e co ur t ba se d on a la ck of su bjec t-matte r juri sd ic ti on

. W e di sm is s t he ap pe al for lac k o f ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on

.

In 20 14 , Ada m Vas se ur su ed va rio us de fen da nt s in Mi ss ou ri st at e co ur t al le gi ng in

juri es su st ai ne d in a car acci de nt

. Vas se ur fil e d an am en de d pe ti ti on

na m in g TEI as an ad di ti on al de fen da nt on Nov em be r 17 , 20 17

. TEI rem ov ed to th e Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e W es te rn Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri on Ja nu ary 9, 20 18 ba se d on di ve rs it y juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 13 32

. V a s s e u r fil ed a m ot io n to

rem an d on Ju ne 13 , 20 18 , arg ui ng th at th e rem ov al ha d vi ol at ed th e on e-year ti m e li m it of 2 8 U.S.C. § 14 46 (c), wh ic h p ro vi de s t ha t “ [a] case m ay no t be rem ov ed

. . . on th e ba si s of juri sd ic ti on co nf erre d by se ct io n 13 32 m or e th an 1 y ear aft er
co m m en cem en t of th e act io n, un le ss th e di st ric t co ur t fin ds th at th e pl ai nt iff ha s act ed in ba d fait h in or de r to pre ve nt a de fen da nt fro m rem ov in g th e act io n.” The di st ric t

co ur t gr an te d V a s s e ur ’s m ot io n, ho ld in g th at § 14 46 (c) is juri sd ic ti on al , th at th e fai lu re to rem ov e th e cas e wit hi n on e y ear of th e co m m en cem en t of th e or ig in al act io n ha d t h eref

or e de pr iv ed th e di st ric t co ur t of su bjec t-matte r juri sd ic ti on , an d th at th e
cas e sh ou ld be rem an de d to Mi ss ou ri st at e co ur t pu rs ua nt t o 28 U.S.C. § 14 47 (c). TEI app eal s.

TEI arg ue s th at th e rem an d or de r was “ erro ne ou s” b e c a u s e , un de r Mi ss ou ri la w, a n act io n co m

m en ces ag ai ns t a p art ic ul ar p art y when th at pa rty is a dd ed to th e la wsu it , no t when th e o rig in al act io n was fil ed ag ai ns t o th er d efen da nt s. Bu t u nd er 28 U.S.C. § 14 47 (d ), “ [w]hen a d i s t ric t co ur t rem an ds a cas e ba se d on a la ck of

su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on un de r se ct io n 14 47 (c), a co ur t of ap pe al s la ck s juri sd ic ti on to en te rta in an ap pe al of th e rem an d or de r” an d “ th e rem an d or de r m us t st an d whe th er
erro ne ou s or no t an d whe th er rev ie w i s s ou gh t b y ap pe al or by ex tra or di na ry writ .”

The Hon or ab le Ro se an n A. Ketc hm ark , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e f or th e 1 W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.
-2

-Rob er ts v. BJC Hea lt h Sy s. , 45 2 F.3 d 73 7, 73 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n

m ark s o m it te d)

. W it h t hi s ru le , “ Co ng res s h as de ci de d t ha t i n th e o rd in ary cas e th e fed eral di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve th e fin al wor d on r em ov al si nc e at so m e po in t li ti ga ti on ov er th e c h o ic e of a co ur tro om m us t en d.” Arn ol d Cr os sr oa ds
, L.L.C. v. Gan de r Mo un ta in Co

. , 75 1 F.3d 93 5, 93 9 (8t h C ir. 2 01 4) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s
om it te d)

. “ Thi s co ng res si on al jud gm en t m ak es pe rfec t se ns e fo r [t]he on ly th in g th at is at st ak e is th e fo ru m th at wil l he ar a cl ai m , an d th is is su e is no t so fu nd am en ta l th at

a se co nd or t hi rd la y er of jud ge s m us t te st it s co rrec tn es s.” Id

. (in te rn al qu ot at io n

m ark s o m it te d)

.

To ve rif y whe th er we l a c k a p p el la te juri sd ic ti on un de r § 14 47 (d ), “ [w]e are req ui red to de te rm in e by in de pe nd en t rev ie w th e act ua l gr ounds fo r th e di st ric t co ur t’s

rem an d or de r.” Id

. Fo r th is an al y si s, a di st ric t co ur t ’s own ch arac te riz at io n of it s
rem an d as ba se d on a la ck of su bjec t-matte r juri sd i ct io n “ is no t di sp os it iv e” bu t

“ rem ai ns in flu en ti al .” Id

. (in te rn al qu ot at io n mar ks om it te d)

. Afte r al l, a di st ric t

co ur t’s rem an d or de r m ay “ dr es s[ ] in juri s d i c ti on al cl ot hi ng a pa te nt ly

no nju ris di ct io na l gr ou nd ” su ch as “ do ck et co ng e s ti on .” Pow er ex Co rp

. v. Reli an t Ene rg y Se rv s., In c. , 55 1 U.S. 22 4, 23 4 (2 00 7)

. Bu t su ch m in im al rev ie w is “ li m it ed
to co nf irming ” th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s “ ch arac te riz at io n of it s rem an d as res ti ng up on la ck of s ub

ject- m at te r juri sd ic ti on ” was at l eas t “ co lo rab le .” Id.

Here, Vass eu r ad m it s th at th e d is tri ct co ur t char act eri zed it s rem an d as bas ed

on a la ck of su bjec t-matte r juri sd ic ti on

. He al so co nc ed ed du rin g or al arg um en t th at th e di st ric t cou rt’s in te rp ret at io n of § 14 46 (c)’s on e-year li m it at io n as j ur is di ct io na l

was “ co lo rab le .” Afte r an in de pe nd en t rev ie w, we ag ree. In 20 12 , § 1 4 4 6 ( c ) was 2

am en de d to ad d a “ ba d fai th ” ex cep ti on to th e on e-year ti m e li m it

. A r e a s o na bl e

Onl y th e po st -2 01 2 ve rs io n of § 14 46 (c) ap pl ie s he re be cau se th e pr es en t cas e 2

w a s co m m en ced aft er Ja nu ary 6, 20 12 , th e da te th e rev is io ns wen t in to effe ct

. S e e Fed eral Co ur ts Ju ris di ct io n an d Ven ue Cl ari fic at io n Act of 20 11 , Pu b. L. No. 11 2- 63 , § 2 05 , 12 5 S ta t. 7 58 , 76 4- 65 (20 11 ).
-3

-arg um en t can be m ad e th at it wou ld on ly be ne ces sa ry to ad d a “ ba d fai th ” ex cep ti on

to th e st at ut e if § 14 46 (c)’s on e-year li m it at io n is juri sd ic ti on al

. If th e on e-year ti m e li m it of § 14 46 (c) is no nju ris di ct io na l, it wou ld al read y be “ pr es um pt iv el y su bjec t to eq ui ta bl e to ll in g,” se e Uni te d St at es v. Kwa i Fun W on g , 13 5 S. Ct

. 16 25 , 16 30 (2 01 5) (em ph as is rem ov ed ), an d th e “ ba d fai th ” ex cep ti on wou ld be la rg el y su pe rfl uo us

. W e
are “ rel uc ta nt to tre at st at ut or y te rm s as su rp lu sa ge in an y se tt in g.” TRW In c. v. And re ws , 53 4 U.S. 1 9, 3 1 (2 00 1)

.

Adm it te dl y , se ve ra l c o u r ts di sa gr ee th at th e on e-year li m it at io n in th e 20 12

ve rs io n of § 14 46 (c) is juri sd ic ti on al

. Se e, e.g

. , Ehr en re ic h v. Bla ck , 99 4 F. Su pp

. 2d 28 4, 28 8 (E.D.N.Y. 20 14 ); Ban k of Am., N.A. v. Leb re to n , N o

. 1 4

- 0 3 1 9, 20 15 W L 22 26 26 6, at *2 3 (D.N.M. Apr

. 20 , 20 15 ); Deu ts ch Ban k Na t’l Co

. v. Bra d e r , N o

. 4: 15 -6 00 , 20 15 W L 98 72 07 0, n .11 (D.S.C. Oct. 2 8, 20 15 ). W e ne ed no t, ho wev er,
res ol v e t h i s i s s ue ; it is “ at le as t de ba ta bl e.” Se e Pow er ex Co rp

. v. Reli an t Ene rg y Se rv s., In c. , 55 1 U.S. 22 4, 23 4 (2 00 7)

. W e th eref or e can no t rev ie w th e m eri ts of th is

rem an d or de r, co lo rab ly ch a r a c te riz ed as ba se d on a la ck of su bjec t-matte r juri sd ic ti on , an d it m

us t st an d “ whe th er erro ne ou s or no t.” BJC Hea lt h Sy s. , 45 2 F.3 d
at 73 9.

Fo r th e f

o r e g o i n g reas on s, we di sm is s th e ap pe al fo r la ck of ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-4

-