Opinion ID: 655302
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Review by Direct Appeal or Mandamus

Text: 10 Travelers filed an appeal from the district court's order remanding plaintiff's claim to state court and a petition for a writ of mandamus. A court of appeals may not 'engage in extraordinary review by mandamus in aid of [its] jurisdiction when it can exercise the same review by a contemporaneous ordinary appeal.'  United States v. Santtini, 963 F.2d 585, 590 (3d Cir.1992) (quoting Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 8 n. 6, 103 S.Ct. 927, 933 n. 6, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1651)). Therefore, we must first determine whether an appeal is available to [Travelers] at this time and if not, whether a writ ... may issue on these facts. Id. 11 All parties (plaintiff, Baker and Travelers) agree that we have jurisdiction over Travelers' appeal. Nevertheless, we have a special obligation to decide the jurisdictional question for ourselves even though the parties are prepared to concede it. Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541, 106 S.Ct. 1326, 1331, 89 L.Ed.2d 501 (1986); see Lewis v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, Local Union No. 771, 826 F.2d 1310, 1312 (3d Cir.1987). We turn to that jurisdictional analysis. 12 Early Supreme Court precedent provided that mandamus was the only avenue for review of a federal court order remanding a claim to a state court. See Railroad Co. v. Wiswall, 90 U.S. (23 Wall.) 507, 508, 23 L.Ed. 103 (1875). In Wiswall, the Court stated: The order of the Circuit Court remanding the cause to the State court is not a 'final judgment' in the action, but a refusal to hear and decide. The remedy in such a case is by mandamus to compel action, and not by a writ of error to review what has been done. Id. 13 Travelers concedes that the district court's remand order is not a final order in the traditional sense. However, Travelers argues that the order is appealable under the collateral order doctrine which developed after Wiswall. See Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949) (establishing collateral order doctrine). 3 Nevertheless, years after the collateral order doctrine was first established, the Supreme Court cited Wiswall for the proposition that an order remanding a removed action does not represent a final judgment reviewable by appeal. Thermtron Prods., Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 352-53, 96 S.Ct. 584, 594, 46 L.Ed.2d 542 (1976). Thus, Thermtron indicates that the development of the collateral order doctrine did not nullify Wiswall's holding that review in such cases should be accomplished by mandamus. 14 We are aware that other courts of appeals have held that review in a case such as this should proceed by direct appeal rather than by mandamus. See, e.g., McDermott Int'l, Inc. v. Lloyds Underwriters, 944 F.2d 1199, 1203 n. 5 (5th Cir.1991). Nevertheless, we agree with those courts that have held that, when a district court exercises its discretion to remand claims to a state court, review is available, if at all, only through a mandamus proceeding. See, e.g., Westinghouse Credit Corp. v. Thompson, 987 F.2d 682, 684 (10th Cir.1993) (Review of the remand of the pendent claims ... must be by mandamus.); In re Surinam Airways Holding Co., 974 F.2d 1255, 1257 (11th Cir.1992) ([A]n order expressly remanding pursuant to § 1367(c) is reviewable. As in Thermtron, the appropriate basis for reviewing such an order is on petition for writ of mandamus. (citation omitted)); Corcoran v. Ardra Ins. Co., 842 F.2d 31, 35 (2d Cir.1988) (Thermtron's explicit ruling that review must be by mandamus rather than appeal has recently been reinforced [by the Supreme Court].). 15 We conclude that the proper method for review is by petition for writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we shall dismiss Travelers' appeal. We next consider whether Travelers has satisfied the requirements for the issuance of the writ.