Corona-Contreras v. Gruel, No. 15-16783 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against defendant in state court alleging breach of contract and legal malpractice. Defendant removed to federal court eleven months later and plaintiff did not object nor did he file a motion to remand. More than three months after removal, the district court sua sponte found the removal to be untimely and remanded the case back to state court. The Ninth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to hear this appeal because this was one of the rare cases in which the court must decide the merits to decide jurisdiction; the district court exceeded its authority under 28 U.S.C. 1447(c) by remanding sua sponte based on a non-jurisdictional defect; and thus the panel vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Remand / Removal. The panel held that the district court exceeded its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) in sua sponte ordering a remand based on a procedural defect in the removal from state court of an action alleging breach of contract and legal malpractice, vacated the district court’s remand order, and remanded to the district court for further proceedings. The district court remanded the case based on the court’s understanding that the time limits for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) had not been satisfied. The panel held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal because this was one of the rare cases where the panel needed to decide the merits to decide jurisdiction. The panel held that if the district court lacked authority to remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), appellate review was not precluded under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). The panel held that federal subject matter jurisdiction was satisfied under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) where the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, and the citizenship of the parties was diverse. The panel concluded that remand was based on a procedural defect, not a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
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.