Court Opinion

ID: 9375609
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-28 15:00:54.496633+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:00.395297
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-2191     Document: 17    Page: 1   Filed: 02/28/2023

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                   ______________________

                EDWARD BRAVENEC, et al.,
                    Plaintiff-Appellee

                             v.

                ROWLAND J. MARTIN, JR.,
                   Defendant-Appellant
                  ______________________

                         2022-2191
                   ______________________

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 Western District of Texas in No. 5:22-cv-00522-JKP, Judge
 Jason Kenneth Pulliam.
                  ______________________

                       ON MOTION
                   ______________________

 PER CURIAM.
                        ORDER
     Before the court are Rowland J. Martin, Jr.’s response
 to this court’s November 17, 2022, show cause order, ECF
 No. 14; “opposed motion for writ of mandamus and for
 emergency stay of the district court order dated September
 29, 2022,” ECF No. 13; and amended notice of appeal, ECF
 No. 12. For the following reasons, we now dismiss.
Case: 22-2191     Document: 17     Page: 2    Filed: 02/28/2023

 2                                        BRAVENEC   v. MARTIN

      Edward Bravenec and 1216 West Ave., Inc. brought
 suit against Mr. Martin in Texas state court asserting a
 claim for tortious interference with contractual relations in
 connection with the sale of a property in San Antonio. See
 Martin v. Bravenec, No. 04-14-00483-CV, 2015 WL
 2255139, at *2 (Tex. App. May 13, 2015). Mr. Martin re-
 moved the case to federal district court. On September 29,
 2022, the district court issued an order remanding the case
 to state court for lack of jurisdiction, * explaining that the
 action sought to be removed was “not based on any federal
 claim within Plaintiff’s state petition or on the basis of di-
 versity jurisdiction,” ECF No. 6-2 at 14, and that Mr. Mar-
 tin’s attempts to assert various federal claims provided no
 basis for jurisdiction over the removed action, see id.
      Judicial review over the district court’s remand order
 is foreclosed by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), which provides that
 “[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which
 it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.”
 The Supreme Court has made clear that if the district court
 “relied upon a ground that is colorably characterized as
 subject-matter jurisdiction,” then the remand order is sub-
 ject to § 1447(d)’s bar and therefore outside of the review
 authority of any appellate court. Powerex Corp. v. Reliant
 Energy Servs., Inc., 551 U.S. 224, 234 (2007). The district
 court here clearly premised its remand order on its view
 that it lacked jurisdiction over the removed case. Section
 1447(d) therefore requires dismissal without need to fur-
 ther explore whether this appeal would otherwise come
 within our review authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a) or
 be appropriately transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

     *   Although Mr. Martin filed his initial notice of ap-
 peal before the district court’s remand order, he attached
 the district court’s order to an amended notice of appeal he
 submitted to this court on October 6, 2022, ECF No. 6-2 at
 12–15.
Case: 22-2191     Document: 17      Page: 3    Filed: 02/28/2023

 BRAVENEC   v. MARTIN                                        3

     Mandamus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 is likewise un-
 available. By its terms, section 1447(d) bars appellate re-
 view of remand orders, based on lack of subject matter
 jurisdiction, by way of “appeal or otherwise” (emphasis
 added). Review through a writ of mandamus is one such
 alternative prohibited by § 1447(d). See Gravitt v. Sw. Bell
 Tel. Co., 430 U.S. 723, 723–24 (1977) (“The District Court’s
 remand order was . . . unreviewable by the Court of Ap-
 peals, by mandamus or otherwise.”).
    Accordingly,
    IT IS ORDERED THAT:
     (1) The appeal is dismissed.
     (2) All motions are denied as moot.
     (3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
                                     FOR THE COURT

 February 28, 2023                   /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
       Date                          Peter R. Marksteiner
                                     Clerk of Court