Martin Groff Construction Co v. Kevin C. Betskoff, No. 10-2430 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: <
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2430 MARTIN GROFF CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff Appellee, v. KEVIN C. BETSKOFF, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:10-cv-03024-RDB) Submitted: June 3, 2011 Decided: June 9, 2011 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin C. Betskoff, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kevin C. Betskoff appeals the district court s order remanding the underlying action to Maryland state court. We vacate and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Congress has placed broad restrictions on the power of federal appellate courts to review district court orders remanding removed cases to state court. Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 127 (1995). Thus, remand orders are generally not reviewable 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). appellate on appeal otherwise. * or The Supreme Court has explained that the restrictions of § 1447(d) must be read in pari materia with § 1447(c), so that only remands based on grounds specified in [28 U.S.C.] § 1447(c) [(2006)] [i.e., lack of subject matter jurisdiction and defects in removal procedures] are immune from review under § 1447(d). 516 U.S. at 127. based [t]he on a bar substantively Whether a remand order is reviewable is not district of one Things Remembered, court s § 1447(d) of the explicit applies grounds citation to any specified to § order in 1447(c); invoking § 1447(c). Borneman v. United States, 213 F.3d 819, 824-25 (4th Cir. 2000). * The statute provides an exception to the appellate ban for civil rights cases removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2006). 2 Although a remand based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be entered at any time, either sua sponte or by any party, remand for a procedural defect must be effected by granting a timely filed motion. Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc., 519 F.3d 192, 196-97 (4th Cir. 2008). Where, as here, a district court sua sponte remands a case as untimely removed, it acts outside the scope of § 1447(c), and the order is reviewable by this court. Id. Here, the district court s remand order was entered sua sponte, based on its finding that removal was untimely under § 1447(c). However, we have held that a district court is prohibited from procedural remanding defect absent a a case motion sua to sponte do so based from a on a party. Ellenburg, 519 F.3d at 198. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. In light of this disposition, Betskoff s motion to expedite. we deny as moot 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. VACATED AND REMANDED 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.
