Alabama Dental Assn. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, No. 08-16657 (11th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT MAR 16, 2010 JOHN LEY CLERK No. 08-16657 ________________________ D. C. Docket No. 07-00134-CV-2-RDP ALABAMA DENTAL ASSOCIATION, THE in an associational capacity on behalf of its members, et al., Plaintiffs, LEW MITCHELL, D.M.D., Plaintiff-Appellee, versus BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD OF ALABAMA, INC., Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama _________________________ (March 16, 2010) Before HULL, WILSON and FARRIS,* Circuit Judges. * Honorable Jerome Farris, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation. PER CURIAM: Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, Inc. (BCBS) appeals the district court s order remanding this case to state court. BCBS argues that the district court was compelled to retain jurisdiction pursuant to the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). BCBS also argues that the district court abused its discretion by failing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. As a preliminary matter, we resolve a jurisdictional issue that was carried with the case: whether under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) we can review the district court s decision to remand. The district court remanded after first concluding there was no federal officer removal jurisdiction, then electing not to retain jurisdiction over state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). In Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1862, 1866 (2009), the Supreme Court recently made clear our power to review such a decision. This case differs from a remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction that is not reviewable. Both sides agree that Carlsbad confirms this Court s jurisdiction over this appeal. We have reviewed the briefs and received the benefit of oral argument. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the remand of the Second Amended Complaint to state court. AFFIRMED. 2
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.
