Chan Healthcare Group v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance, No. 16-35210 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseIn these consolidated appeals, the court addressed an issue of first impression regarding the scope of appellate jurisdiction to review a district court’s remand order in a class action case founded on federal question jurisdiction. Although remand orders are not appealable as a matter of course, as part of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), Congress created an exception under 28 U.S.C. 1453(c)(1) that permits courts of appeals to accept appeals from remand orders in cases that are removed “under this section.” The court joined its sister circuits and concluded that this interlocutory review provision is limited to orders granting or denying remand of diversity class actions brought and removed under CAFA. The court dismissed the petition for permission to appeal, vacated the order granting fees, and remanded.
Court Description: Removal / Remand. The panel (1) dismissed a petition for permission to appeal the district court’s remand order in a class action case founded on federal question jurisdiction and (2) vacated the district court’s order granting attorneys’ fees. Joining the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Circuits, the panel held that the interlocutory review provision set forth in the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1), is limited to orders granting or denying remand of diversity class actions brought and removed under CAFA. Therefore, under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), the panel lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s order remanding the case to the state court from which it had been removed. The panel vacated the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees to the plaintiff under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The district court awarded attorneys’ fees on the ground that that the defendant lacked an objective basis for removal because the notice of removal was untimely under § 1446(b). The panel held that the notice of removal was timely filed within thirty days after receipt of plaintiff’s state court reply brief, which was the first filing that referenced a federal due process claim. The panel remanded the case to the district court.
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.