Smith v. Mylan Inc., No. 12-56028 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseDefendants invoked diversity jurisdiction and filed a notice of removal fourteen months after the lawsuit was filed in state court. The district court sua sponte remanded, concluding that defendants removed the case too late. The court held that the district court acted in excess of its statutory authority because the one-year time limitation for removal of diversity cases under 28 U.S.C. 1446(b) is a procedural requirement rather than jurisdictional; while the district court may remand at any time prior to final judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, it cannot remand sua sponte based on a non-jurisdictional defect because procedural deficiencies are waivable; and, in this instance, plaintiffs' failure to object constituted a waiver of any right to contest the removal. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded.
Court Description: Diversity Jurisdiction / Removal. The panel vacated the district court’s dismissal based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction of a wrongful death case, and remanded to the district court. Defendants invoked diversity jurisdiction and filed a notice of removal fourteen months after the lawsuit was filed in state court. The district court sua sponte remanded on the ground that Defendants had removed the case too late, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The panel held that it had jurisdiction to review the district court’s remand order. The panel also held that the district court acted in excess of its statutory authority because the one-year time limitation for removal of diversity cases under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) (current version at 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)) was a procedural requirement rather than jurisdictional. The panel held that the district court could not remand sua sponte based on a non-jurisdictional defect because procedural deficiencies were waivable. The panel concluded that Plaintiffs’ failure to object constituted a waiver of any right to contest the removal.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.