and Submitted April 17, 2017 San Francisco, California.
from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California James Donato, District Judge,
Presiding D.C. No. 3:15-cv-02143-JD
T. Campbell (argued), San Francisco, California; Paul H.
Nathan, San Francisco, California; for Defendant-Appellant.
K. Tagawa (argued), San Francisco, California, for
Before: Stephen Reinhardt and Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit
Judges, and Ann D. Montgomery, [*] District Judge.
panel held that the district court exceeded its authority
under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) in sua sponte
ordering a remand based on a procedural defect in the removal
from state court of an action alleging breach of contract and
legal malpractice, vacated the district court's remand
order, and remanded to the district court for further
district court remanded the case based on the court's
understanding that the time limits for removal under 28
U.S.C. § 1446(b) had not been satisfied.
panel held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal
because this was one of the rare cases where the panel needed
to decide the merits to decide jurisdiction. The panel held
that if the district court lacked authority to remand under
28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), appellate review was not precluded
under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d).
panel held that federal subject matter jurisdiction was
satisfied under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) where the amount in
controversy exceeded $75, 000, and the citizenship of the
parties was diverse. The panel concluded that remand was
based on a procedural defect, not a lack of subject matter
panel held that because the district court remanded for a
procedural defect, and because procedural defects are
waivable, the district court lacked authority to remand in
the absence of a timely motion by the plaintiff. The panel
concluded that because the plaintiff did not file any motion
to remand, the district court exceeded its authority under 28
U.S.C. § 1447(c) by remanding sua sponte based
on a non-jurisdictional defect.
panel held that it need not decide whether removal was
untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) because even if it
was, the district court lacked authority to remand on this
basis absent a timely motion to remand by the plaintiff.