Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
B.A.C. HOME LOANS SERVICE, L.P., f/k/a Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Johnson D. KOOLA, Defendant - Appellant, First Citizens Bank & Trust Company, Inc., f/k/a First Citizens Bank and Trust Company of South Carolina; Cambridge Lakes Condominium Homeowners Association, Inc., f/k/a Cambridge Lakes Horizontal Property Regime, Defendants.
Johnson D. Koola seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and remanding this foreclosure proceeding to the state court from which it was removed on the grounds that removal was untimely and the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. 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). The Supreme Court has instructed that “§ 1447(d) must be read in pari materia with [28 U.S.C.] § 1447(c), so that only remands based on grounds specified in § 1447(c) are immune from review under § 1447(d).” Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 127, 116 S.Ct. 494, 133 L.Ed.2d 461 (1995). Thus, § 1447(d)'s proscription against review applies only to remand orders “based on (1) a district court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction or (2) a defect in removal other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction that was raised by the motion of a party within 30 days after the notice of removal was filed.” Doe v. Blair, 819 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).
B.A.C. Home Loans moved to remand to the state court within 30 days of Koola's notice of removal. The district court remanded on the grounds that removal was untimely and that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Under the cited authorities, we are without jurisdiction to review the remand order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
PER CURIAM
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 20-1407
Decided: August 24, 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)