Opinion ID: 663100
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Effect of the remand on jurisdiction.

Text: 13 Regarding the remand, Marine Towing notes that while the removed case was pending in federal court, Sphere Drake filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation--the identical relief it sought in this case. Because the same arguments were before the remanding court, Marine Towing argues that the remand should be res judicata as to the forum for resolving the issues. 14 The prohibition of jurisdiction over claims previously remanded in an earlier action is based upon the proscription against review of remand orders in 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1447(d) (West 1973) (providing that a remand order is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise). See New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Majoue, 802 F.2d 166, 167-68 (5th Cir.1986) (finding no jurisdiction over federal action that was nothing more than an artful, if not subtle, attempt to circumvent ... Sec. 1447(d)). A federal court does not have jurisdiction over a case filed for the purpose of collaterally attacking the remand of another action. Browning v. Navarro, 743 F.2d 1069, 1077-78 (5th Cir.1984) (rejecting review of bankruptcy remand via ancillary proceedings). 15 The question whether this suit constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on the earlier remand order is determined by considering whether the remanding court decided the arbitrability question before remanding. See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Haydu, 637 F.2d 391, 396-97 (5th Cir. Unit B Feb. 1981). If the first district court had adjudicated the merits of [Sphere Drake's] motion to compel arbitration ... in its remand order, it is clear that [Sphere Drake] could not attack that order collaterally by alleging an independent action involving the same parties and claims. Id. at 396. If the remanding court did not consider the propriety of arbitration, however, the second suit is not an impermissible collateral attack on the remand order. See id. at 396-97. 16 The supplemental record, comprised of the removed and remanded case, refutes any suggestion that the district court adjudicated Sphere Drake's motion to compel arbitration in connection with the remand. The district court remanded only because of the removing party's failure to obtain the consent of codefendants; the court decided nothing on Sphere Drake's arbitrability motion and in fact later declared the motion moot. 3 This civil action, filed before that order of remand, is not prohibited under Majoue and Merrill Lynch, because it does not constitute a collateral attack on the order of remand. 17