Court Opinion

ID: 9411740
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-27 18:00:54.186599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:11.522816
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                            FILED
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
                                                                             JUL 27 2023
                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
LTC (BVI) LIMITED,                               No.   22-16252

                Plaintiff-Appellee,              D.C. No. 4:22-cv-03481-YGR

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
BRAUNHAGEY & BORDEN LLP,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of California
                  Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding

                          Argued and Submitted July 12, 2023
                              San Francisco, California

Before: S.R. THOMAS, BENNETT, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

      BraunHagey & Borden LLP appeals from the district court’s order granting

in part LTC (BVI) Limited’s (“LTC”) motion to remand in an action that

BraunHagey removed from state court to federal court based on diversity

jurisdiction.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      We have jurisdiction to decide whether we have jurisdiction. United States

v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 628 (2002). In this case we do not. We lack jurisdiction

over this appeal because the district court properly remanded the case pursuant to

the forum-defendant rule, which is a “non-jurisdictional defect subject to the 30-

day time limit imposed by [28 U.S.C. ]§ 1447(c).” Lively v. Wild Oats Mkts., Inc.,

456 F.3d 933, 942 (9th Cir. 2006). The district court had the authority to remand

because LTC properly moved to remand “within 30 days after the filing of the

notice of removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see id. § 1447(d) (stating that, absent an

exception inapplicable here, “[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from

which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise”); Thermtron

Prods., Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 346 (1976) (holding that “only

remand orders issued under § 1447(c) and invoking the grounds specified

therein . . . are immune from review under § 1447(d)”), abrogated on other

grounds by Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706 (1996).

      DISMISSED.1

      1
          Appellant’s request for judicial notice (Dkt. No. 24) is DENIED.
                                           2