Opinion ID: 613119
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: transport's motion to dismiss

Text: Before examining the district court's decision, we must address a preliminary question  whether to dismiss Street/National Union's appeal of the remand order. Transport argues that Street/National Union waived their right to re-remove the Removed Action to federal court when they filed a cross-complaint in the Vulcan Action. In some cases, a defendant may waive the initial right to removal if the defendant takes actions in state court that manifest his or her intent to have the matter adjudicated there. Resolution Trust Corp. v. Bayside Developers, 43 F.3d 1230, 1240 (9th Cir.1994). Transport cites no authority extending this waiver principle to the appeal of a remand order, but even if we extended it to this case, Transport's argument would fail. A waiver of the right of removal must be clear and unequivocal. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, there is no evidence that Street/National Union intended to waive their right to appeal the district court's order. Street/National Union merely sought to preserve their claims in state court pending the outcome of this appeal; they have indicated at every step of the way that they intended to pursue the appeal. Further, Street's post-remand filings do not deprive us of jurisdiction to review the remand order. The case is not moot because an actual controversy still exists between Transport and Street/National Union. See Alvarez v. Smith, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 576, 580-81, 175 L.Ed.2d 447 (2009). For these reasons, we deny Transport's motion to partially dismiss the appeal, and we review the district court's decision in its entirety.