Court Opinion

ID: 9890088
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-12 15:01:34.256922+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:03:56.463052
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 22-7172                                                September Term, 2023
                                                                      1:22-cv-03433-DLF
                                                      Filed On: October 12, 2023
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee for
Option OneMortgage Loan Trust 2005-2,
Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2005-2,

              Appellee

       v.

Janice Wolk Grenadier,

              Appellant

            ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                      FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

       BEFORE:       Wilkins, Katsas, and Walker, Circuit Judges

                                    JUDGMENT

        This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P.
34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

        ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s November 17, 2022 order
remanding the case to state court be reversed and the case be remanded for further
proceedings. Because the district court’s remand order was not “based on a timely
raised defect in removal procedure or on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction,” this court
has jurisdiction to review the remand order. See Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca,
516 U.S. 124, 127–28 (1995); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)–(d). For essentially the
same reason, we conclude that the district court’s remand order was premature. The
district court did not conclude that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the case,
and its remand order was issued sua sponte rather than in response to a timely motion
asserting a procedural defect in removal. And we cannot determine based on the
limited record whether that error was harmless. Cf. Buchanan v. Manley, 145 F.3d 386,
388–89 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (per curiam). We express no opinion on venue, timeliness, or
any other arguments that appellee might raise on remand. We likewise express no
opinion on whether transfer, rather than remand, of the case is available or warranted
under the circumstances.
                 United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 22-7172                                                September Term, 2023

        Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk
is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution
of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.
P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

                                       Per Curiam

                                          Page 2