Legal Memorandum: Remand from Federal to State Court

Issue: What is the standard for remanding an action to state court after removal to federal court?

The decision whether to grant a plaintiff’s motion to remand is in the district court’s discretion, and generally will not be reviewed by the court of appeals.  Rae v. Perry, 392 F. App’x 753, 754 (11^th Cir. 2010).

The standards for remanding an action to state court after removal to federal court are well settled and have been recently applied in this Court:

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and thus a federal court must take care to ensure that it has jurisdiction for all cases that come before it.  Rembert v. Apfel, 213 F.3d 1331, 1333-34 (11th Cir. 2000).  To that end, a district court must always answer the question of whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a case.

Personnel Options, Inc. v. The Reserves Network, Inc., No. 3:10-cv-071 (N.D. Ga. June 30, 2010).

“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The district courts of the United States have jurisdiction over diversity cases in which the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy is more than $75,000, not including interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).

Boateng v. Morrison Mgmt. Specialists, Inc., No. 1:11-CV-00142 (N.D. Ga. June 13, 2011).

When determining subject matter jurisdiction, a court must construe the removal statute narrowly and resolve any uncertainties in favor of remand.  Burns v. Windsor […]

margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify’>