Legal Document

423 U.S. 336 96 Supreme Court Reporter 584 46 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 542 THERMTRON PRODUCTS, INC., and Larry Dean Newhard, Petitioners,v.H. David HERMANSDORFER, Judge, District for the Eastern of Kentucky. Number 74-206. Argued Oct. 7, 1975. Decided Jan. 20, 1976. Syllabus Title 28 Code KF62 § 1441(a) provides that "any civil action brought in a State court which district courts have original jurisdiction" may be removed by defendant to federal court, 1446 removal procedure. Section 1447(c) remand state on ground case was "improvidently without jurisdiction," 1447(d) imposes general bar against appellate review order. After two citizens Kentucky had damages petitioners, an Indiana corporation its employee, citizen Indiana, petitioners Federal under §§ 1446. Thereafter respondent, though conceding statutory right remove ordered remanded trial, solely his heavy docket would unjustly delay plaintiffs from going trial merits. Petitioners then filed Appeals alternative petition writ mandamus or prohibition been properly respondent lacked authority he asserted. The denied after concluding (1) jurisdiction enter order (2) because no concede prohibits all orders issued pursuant 1447(c), whether erroneous not, but maintain does not apply authorized 1447(c). Held: 1. exceeded remanding grounds permitted Pp. 342-345. 2. 1447(d), when construed as it must conjunction with made specified there being indication either language legislative history provision Congress intended extend reach based grounds. 345-352. 3. Here, where refused adjudicate case, statutes, proper remedy compel entertain action. 352-353. Reversed remanded. Frank G. Dickey, Jr., Lexington, Ky., petitioners. C. Kilmer Combs, Pikesville, respondents real parties interests. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered opinion Court. 1 questions this are Judge diversity reasons statute, and, if such remedied mandamus. 2 * On April 9, 1973, residents Thermtron Products, Inc., office place business Kentucky, one employee resident seeking injuries arising out automobile accident between plaintiffs' vehicle driven Newhard. Service defendants, who here, substituted service Secretary Commonwealth, law. Later month, cause 14411 1446.2 assigned number, defendants their answer later proceeded discovery. February 5, 1974, judge recited "was Pike Circuit Court, County, 30, provisions 1446," reviewed entire found "that is available time try above-styled foreseeable future" adjudication merits expedited court. Record 31. called upon show "why ends justice do require matter (to) . .." Ibid. In response order, asserted they believed could fair impartial courts, applicable tried discretion merely crowded docket, other legal remand. 3 March 22, memorandum noted petitioners' contention "right" invoking 1441, remarked "(t)he fact." 36. That right, stated, nevertheless "balanced forum choice speedy decision action." Because Court's cases priority time,3 "plaintiffs' redress severely impaired," "would courts." Id., at 37. Remarking purpose statute prevent prejudice local view showing possible might follow remand, remanded.4 4 Sixth prohibition, requesting relief whatsoever him. Based respondent's response, issue contained 1447(d). We granted certiorari, 420 923, 95 1115, 43 391 (1975), now reverse. II 5 unless otherwise expressly provided Act Congress, States.5 procedure removal;6 section only accordance 1447 governs removal. part: 6 "If any before final judgment appears improvidently jurisdiction, shall payment just costs." 7 following section, generally forbids orders: 8 "An reviewable appeal otherwise, except 1443 title otherwise."7 9 It unquestioned conceded sought extraordinary writ. This has established rule predecessors stretching back 1887. See, e. g., re Pennsylvania Co., 137 451, 11 141, 34 L.Ed. 738 (1890); Ex parte Matthew Addy S. 256 417, 41 508, 65 1027 (1921); Employers Reinsurance Corporation versus Bryant, 299 374, 57 273, 81 289 (1937); Rice, 327 742, 66 835, 90 982 (1946). If purports subject challenge appeals appeal, mandamus, otherwise. 10 us also bars did purport proceed basis jurisdiction." Neither propriety nor questioned slightest.8 even mentioned. Instead, wholly different those permits determining factor thought consideration, however, plainly irrelevant initially removability hence question within meaning statute. Removal allowed since first Judiciary Act, never dependent court's docket. indeed unfortunate judicial manpower insufficient reasonable promptness statutes. But more considers itself too busy than instance dismissed referred reason. McClellan Carland, 217 268, 30 501, 54 762 (1910); Chicot County Sherwood, 148 529, 13 695, 37 546 (1893); Hyde Stone, 20 How. 170, 15 874 (1858). 12 agree petitioners: controlling statute.9 III Although Appeals, erroneously we think, held mention suggest improperly, removable 1441 want face position acted challenging case. 14 disagree conclusion. dispositive reviewability itself. together, said these sections supra, U.S., 380-381, S.Ct., 276-277, 289, (1937), Kloeb Armour & 311 199, 202, 61 213, 215, 85 124 (1940). These provisions, like predecessors, "are pari materia (and) accordingly rather distinct enactments ." 380, 276. means therein improvident immune roots Mar. 3, 1887, 24 Statutes-at-Large 552. Prior 1875, were error judgment. Railroad company Wiswall, 23 Wall. 507, 103 (1875). 18 472, became satisfied during pendency really substantially involve dispute controversy require. dismissing appeal.10 while disturbing dismissal repealed 1875 providing "improperly removed" should "no circuit so allowed." 553.11 (Emphasis added.) 16 disposition lacking improper, together review, included Judicial 1911, appeared 71 80 (1946 ed.), 36 1094, 1098, endured until 194812 enacted minus, review. omission corrected 1949 predecessor present subsection (d) came into being.13 17 Until 1948, then, over "improperly" removed, "so remanding" appealable. 80, section. (1937). plain 71, remanded" improperly removed. Insofar advised, ever prohibited purporting ground.14 Sections represent 1948 recodification 80. They restate prior law respect reviewability.15 There entered 19 doubt protracted litigation jurisdictional issues, 742 751, 835 838, 982, immunized forms deemed convinced carte blanche revise statutes governing seem justifiable them recognized move slowly some counterparts considerations recognize passing issues. consider, statutorily defined power; issuance barred holding neither disturb take well-established forbid yet past extinguish power correct erred applying requisite touching decline construe woodenly result now. IV 21 remains absent appropriate affirmative. 22 A "traditional use aid both common confine inferior lawful exercise prescribed duty so." Roche Evaporated Milk Assn., 319 21, 26, 63 938, 941, 87 1185 (1943); Peru, 318 578, 584, 793, 797, 1014 Bankers Life Cas. Holland, 346 379, 382, 74 145, 147, 98 106 (1953). "Repeated decisions will lie direct subordinate decide pending cause," Insurance Comstock, 258, 270, 493 (1873), "a reinstate same." 268 280, 501 504, 762. foregoing cases, declared action, what done." 507 103. Absent prohibitions, challenged "the undoubted." 451 453, 141 738. nothing our dealing writs leads availability circumstances case; See Will States, 389 90, 88 269, 305 (1967); Schlagenhauf Holder, 379 104, 234, 152 (1964); La Buy Howes Leather 352 249, 77 309, 290 (1957); McCullough Cosgrave, 309 634, 60 703, 84 992 (1940); Los Angeles Brush James, 272 701, 47 286, 481 (1927). contrary, support nullification resting having warrant reversed, further proceedings consistent opinion. 25 So ordered. 26 STEVENS took part consideration 27 REHNQUIST, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE STEWART join, dissenting. begins discussion asking wrong questions, compounds arriving least thus posed. principal, my only, presented existed, course follows examine contentions authority, denying affirmed. Mansfield, L. M. R. Swan, 111 510, 462 (1884). As N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions think so, Sheldon Sill, 441, 1147 (1850), dissent. 29 unreasonably says. says: 31 Nor confronted impression. recognizes, limitation remained unchanged enactment consistently ruled form orders. 32 Congress' barring always very clear additional removing party achieve reconsideration extended works significant interference conduct commenced While felt making instances justifies interruption delay, obviously equally important warranted returned expeditiously possible. balanced concern disregarded, become device affording litigants delaying justice. 33 ability invoke ultimately unavailing merits, opportunity delay. decided possibility unacceptable source therefore arbiters specific actions occasionally err decisions, certainly unaware probabilities. All decision-makers time, systems frequently provide errors. compelled. continued disruption caused minimal harm attempting still receive cannot presumed unwilling unable afford substantial concluded cases. explicitly indicated intent result; "(i)t difficult see done make (remand) final, purposes removal, Morey Lockhart, 123 56, 57, 65, 68 (1887). Yet today holds mean said. 35 majority attempts avoid characterizing limited directive i. e., "removed crabbed reading ignores undoubted behind congressional prohibition. opposing obtain litigate frustrate wide ranging indeed. By permitting effectively undermines accepted adhered almost years. naive hope suppose, apparently does, effect today's unique According beyond virtue fact premised him conclusion purportedly drawn agree, arguendo, clogged desire unreasonable however salutary motivation it, placed Congress. fail how unauthorized concludes Surely contravenes statute's terms. error, today, seems believe instant determined satisfaction application empowered evaluate. purported distinction unworkable portentous impairment carefully worked scheme. relies belief acting requirement explanation reason expect explanations. evaluate potential claims lower (c)? And finds using rubric papers demonstrate absurd? Are challengers entitled seek appeals, sham second block decision? grant certiorari reversal meaning, avenues attack clearly open opponents devices soon render meaningless express, heretofore fully effective, prohibiting tactics abuse 38 majority's longer everyone provided: 39 "Whenever same whence came, immediately carried execution, ed.). 40 words novel construction former 71. limiting restricted removed," described above-quoted sentence. early 553, applied remands removals taken account influence independent directives requiring Rejecting argument essentially identical advanced majority, held: "The end influence, has, minds, special significance. Its broad enough cover evidently congress." Morey, 58, 66. 42 Employes reiterated holding, ruling 1911 revision split various sections, characterizes Bryant ed.) Title. Ante, 348. statement anywhere case's stated prohibitions originally 1887 (and effect) include latter." 381, 752, 839, Even accept theory somehow universal phrase current contending "intended reviewability." 349-350. assertion flies revising codifying 28, to, did, work changes judiciary. House Committee proposed revisions effectuated altered less cumbersome scheme several restrict jurisdiction. H.R.Rep.No.308, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 6, A133-A134. 1447, new 44 "(s)ection consolidates procedural 72, 74, 76, 83 1940 ed., substance phraseology." A-136. 45 can stresses reintroduction inadvertently omitted Code, enact finality previously effect. 350 n. 15. interpretation, it. "former finality" judgments "remanding conclusive." 454, 142, supra. doubted "Congress, adoption policy prolonged accomplished 839. 48 Finally, perceive justification ignore express favor personally perceives "justice" anything errors individual justify To carry avoiding causes, begun 751-752, 838-839, responsibility implementation courts. strike balance anew. 49 demonstrated protect abuses rights necessary so. Georgia Rachel, 384 780, 86 1783, 925 (1966); City Greenwood Peacock, 808, 1800, 944 (1966). apparent judiciary pose danger repetition.* Rather leaving future repetition sets perceived process doing reopens avenue dilatory closed. am consider claims, affirm below. provides: "(a) Except division embracing pending. "(b) Any founded claim Constitution, treaties laws regard citizenship residence parties. none interest joined served brought. "(c) Whenever separate sued alone, non-removable causes determine issues therein, or, discretion, matters desiring criminal prosecution file verified containing short facts entitle copy process, pleadings proceeding thirty days receipt defendant, through initial pleading setting forth based, summons required whichever period shorter. removable, amended pleading, motion, paper ascertained removable. trial. "(d) Each proceeding, behalf accompanied bond good sufficient surety conditioned pay costs disbursements incurred "(e) Promptly filing give written notice thereof adverse clerk "(f) actual custody habeas corpus, marshal thereupon deliver court." condition explained 36-37: "At close 1974 dockets primary total eighty (80) three hundred ninety-four (394) actions. priorities. Social Security Black Lung Webb Richardson, 472 Reporter, 2nd 538 (6th Cir. 1972). third party. lowest priority, necessity, private Consequently, must, regrettably, continually extended." "*At experiencing influx related Department Health, Education Welfare predicts excess four thousand (4,000) District." Apparently similar "upon information Respondent herein Orders Remand approximately actions, Pikeville, constitute year 1973." 8-9. At oral counsel every why Petitioners' Tr. Oral Arg. 8. 1, 2, "Any prosecutions, wherein pending: "(1) Against person enforce equal persons thereof; "(2) For act color derived rights, refusing inconsistent law." 1949, 1964 "by otherwise" 1443. 901 Civil Rights 1964, 78 266. far record reveals, involves $10,000 exclusive costs, so-called 1331. forbidding timely strict compliance Lower uniformly discretionary Romero ITE Imperial Corp., 332 F.Supp. 523, 526 (PR1971); Isbrandtsen Dist. Marine Engineers Ben. 68, (E.D.N.Y.1966); Davis Joyner, 240 689, 690 (E.D.N.C.1964); Vann Jackson, 165 377, 381 (E.D.N.C.1958). "That if, suit appear thereto, collusively joined, creating cognizable act, dismiss require, just; be." chapter 373, " 'Whenever allowed.' effective revision, chapter, just." Supp. III) An otherwise." (1940), relies, There, suits Ohio individual. Armour's petitions, then-controlling asserting separable plaintiffs, petitions granted. complied, removed; motion petition, separable-controversy finally inapplicable flouted doctrine res judicata directing full faith credit tribunals. reversing, suggestion pass separability, point settled Ohio." 204, 216. relinquished own court" strictly conferred inasmuch determination Mandamus control hold consider. bound determination, contrast Kloeb, here comply all. When revised 1447(e) II) (now 1447(c)) case." provision, Reviser's Note stated: "Subsection (e) subsec. (c)) U.S.C., ed. Such rewritten eliminate remand." 1447. change substantively, although old inexplicably omitted. quickly rectified amendments Code. III), Supp enacted. Report addition 1447(d): "This strikes subsections (c) covered Rules Procedure, adds continued." H.R.Rep.No.352, 81st 15, U.S.Code Cong.Serv.1949, Pages 1248, 1268. amendment, recodify pre-1948 material insofar relevant concerned. word changed "improvidently" reference criteria moment. "(N)o (1948) (of Code) expressed." Fourco Glass Transmirra 353 222, 227, 787, 790, 786 (1957) (footnote omitted). What true light substantive content provisions. panel below intention report "to Council Circuit, supervisory powers Court."

Classification Label: 8