Legal Case Remand Analysis
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsLegal Case Remand Analysis
Uploaded by
Scribd Government Docs472 F.
2d 1039
Rosalie GIVENS et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
W. T. GRANT COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 531, Docket 71-1872.
United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.
Remanded Nov. 13, 1972.
Decided Dec. 8, 1972.
William H. Clendenen, Jr., New Haven, Conn. (David M. Lesser, Stuart
Bear and Frank Cochran, New Haven, Conn., on the brief), for plaintiffsappellants.
William J. Egan, New Haven, Conn. (John Q. Tilson, Jr., J. Michael
Eisner and Wiggin & Dana, New Haven, Conn., on the brief), for
defendant-appellee.
R. Patrick Maxwell and Donald Gartman, Washington, D. C., for The
National Legal Aid and Defender Association as amicus.
Before HAYS, MANSFIELD and TIMBERS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The Supreme Court, in a per curiam order entered November 13, 1972, 409
U.S. 56, has remanded this case to us "for reconsideration of [our] order of
dismissal in light of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(c)." Section 1447(c) provides for
remand to a state court of a case removed to the federal court improvidently and
without jurisdiction.
In reconsidering our order of dismissal, 457 F.2d 612 at 614, in accordance
with the remand from the Supreme Court, we note the following sequence of
prior proceedings herein. On March 5, 1971, this action was removed by
defendant from the Court of Common Pleas of the State of Connecticut, New
Haven County, to the District Court for the District of Connecticut, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Sec. 1446. At no time during the 21 months that this action has been
pending in the federal courts have plaintiffs ever moved to remand it to the
state court as provided in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(c). Indeed, in their petition for
rehearing or rehearing in banc, filed March 30, 1972, plaintiffs expressly
disclaimed any desire to have the case remanded to the state court. And, in view
of plaintiffs' indication to us of their intention to seek further review of our
order of dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, we purposely
refrained from ordering that the case be remanded to the state court, since such
order would not be "reviewable on appeal or otherwise". 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1447(d).
3
We deduce, nevertheless, from the Supreme Court's order of November 13,
1972 that plaintiffs now wish to have the case remanded to the state court.
Accordingly, since our determination that the federal court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction has become final, we order that the opinion of this Court dated
March 17, 1972, as modified May 22, 1972, be further modified so that the last
paragraph thereof, 457 F.2d at 614, shall read as follows:
4
"Accordingly,
since our determination that the federal court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction has become final, we vacate the order of the District Court and remand
the action to the Court of Common Pleas of the State of Connecticut, New Haven
County. No costs."
5
The Clerk of this Court is directed to modify the judgment of this Court
accordingly.
You might also like
- No ratings yetLester L. Cooks v. James M. Franklin, Judge, El Paso District Court Geoffrey De Wolfe, Judge, El Paso District Court D. Richard Toth, Judge Juanita L. Rice, Juvenile Commissioner Ronald G. Crowder, Former Spouse's Attorney Patricia A. Shepard, Law Firm Robert S. Shoop, Plaintiff's Former Attorney, 948 F.2d 1294, 10th Cir. (1991)4 pages
