Ficus Villas Condo Association, Inc. v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Co., No. 20-12166 (11th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
USCA11 Case: 20-12166 Date Filed: 12/29/2020 Page: 1 of 4 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 20-12166 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-21882-FAM FICUS VILLAS CONDO ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, versus HARTFORD STEAM BOILER INSPECTION AND INSURANCE CO., Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (December 29, 2020) USCA11 Case: 20-12166 Date Filed: 12/29/2020 Page: 2 of 4 Before JORDAN, GRANT, and LUCK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company appeals the district court’s orders: (1) sua sponte remanding this removed case back to state court after Hartford Steam missed its deadline to answer the complaint by three days; and (2) denying its motion for reconsideration of the remand order because the pending appeal mooted the reconsideration motion. Ficus Villas Condominium Association confesses that the district court erred as to both orders, and we agree. As to the district court’s sua sponte remand order, under 28 U.S.C. section 1447(c), a district court can remand a removed case back to state court only if it determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, or if a party moves to remand the case because of a defect in the removal process. See Whole Health Chiropractic & Wellness, Inc. v. Humana Med. Plan, Inc., 254 F.3d 1317, 1319–21 (11th Cir. 2001) (Section 1447(c) “does not authorize any sua sponte remand order not based on subject matter jurisdiction . . . . We hold that the district court exceeded its authority under [section] 1447(c) by remanding this case because of a perceived procedural defect in the removal process without waiting for a party’s motion.” (emphasis omitted)). Here, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a), and Ficus Villas did not file a motion to remand. Thus, the district court erred in sua sponte remanding the case. See Yusefzadeh v. Nelson, Mullins, 2 USCA11 Case: 20-12166 Date Filed: 12/29/2020 Page: 3 of 4 Riley & Scarborough, LLP, 365 F.3d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2004) (“A court, which has subject matter jurisdiction, may not remand the case sua sponte because there is no valid reason for the court to decline the exercise of jurisdiction. There is no evidence before this court indicating that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction; the parties were diverse and the amount in controversy requirement was satisfied. Moreover, the district court itself did not say in its remand order that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. All other procedural defects associated with the removal, if any, could only have been raised by Yusefzadeh within the allotted time period of 28 U.S.C. [section] 1447(c). Therefore, the district court erred in remanding this case sua sponte.” (quotations omitted)). As to the district court’s denial of Hartford Steam’s motion for reconsideration, the motion for reconsideration was not moot, as the district court concluded, because the notice of appeal was not “effective” until the district court disposed of the reconsideration motion. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i) (“If a party files a notice of appeal after the court announces or enters a judgment—but before it disposes of any motion listed in Rule 4(a)(4)(A)—the notice becomes effective to appeal a judgment or order, in whole or in part, when the order disposing of the last such remaining motion is entered.”). By rule, the notice of appeal filed during the pendency of the reconsideration motion was “simply suspended” and the district court “retained jurisdiction to consider” it. See Stansell v. Revolutionary Armed 3 USCA11 Case: 20-12166 Date Filed: 12/29/2020 Page: 4 of 4 Forces of Colom., 771 F.3d 713, 745–46 (11th Cir. 2014). The district court erred in finding that Hartford Steam’s pending notice of appeal mooted the reconsideration motion. We reverse the orders under review and remand for the district court to consider the merits of Hartford Steam’s reconsideration motion. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. 4
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.
