Issue: What is the standard for remanding an action to state court after removal to federal court?
| Area of Law: | Litigation & Procedure |
| Keywords: | Diversity-jurisdiction; Remanding a case |
| Jurisdiction: | Federal, Georgia |
| Cited Cases: | 410 F.3d 1350; 31 F.3d 1092; 613 F.3d 1058 |
| Cited Statutes: | 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), § 1332(a)(1) |
| Date: | 08/01/2011 |
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 (11th 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’>