Great Bay Condominium Owners A v. 6101 Gardenia LLC, No. 10-1649 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1649 GREAT BAY CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff - Appellee, v. 6101 GARDENIA LLC, a Maryland Limited Liability Company, Defendant, v. LATONYA M. BROOKS, Movant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:10-cv-00658-PJM) Submitted: January 26, 2011 Decided: February 10, 2011 Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. LaTonya M. Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. David Michael SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Burns, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: LaTonya Brooks seeks to appeal the district court s order remanding this case to the Superior Court of the U.S. Virgin Islands, from which it was removed. We dismiss the appeal. Generally, [a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2006). The Supreme Court has instructed that § 1447(d) must be read in pari materia with [28 U.S.C.] § grounds specified § 1447(d). 127 (1995). 1447(c) [(2006)], in § so 1447(c) that are only immune remands from based review on under Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, Thus: § 1447(d) bars . . . review of a district court s remand order only if the order was issued under § 1447(c) and invoked the grounds specified therein, . . . either (1) that the district court granted a timely filed motion raising a defect in removal procedure or (2) that it noticed a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc., 519 F.3d 192, 196 (4th Cir. omitted). reviewable 2008) (internal Whether under § a quotation district 1447(d) is not marks court s States, 213 F.3d 819, 824 (4th Cir. 2000). 2 remand determined order explicitly cites § 1447(c) or not. and by citations order is whether the Borneman v. United In this case, the district court remanded the action because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Under the cited authorities, we are without jurisdiction to review the remand order, and we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
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.
