Skip to main content

SHIBOLETH LLP v. Patrick Buhannic, Defendant. (2019)

Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

SHIBOLETH LLP, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Philippe Marc BUHANNIC, Defendant-Appellant, Patrick Buhannic, Defendant.


Decided: October 11, 2019

PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges, JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge.* FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: Charles B. Manuel, Jr., Daniel S. Goldstein, Shiboleth LLP, New York, NY. FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Philippe Marc Buhannic, pro se, Verbier, Switzerland.


Appellant Philippe Buhannic, proceeding pro se, appeals the District Court's order denying his second motion for reconsideration of an order remanding this action to the New York State Supreme Court. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We conclude that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. When a district court remands a case based on a timely raised defect in the notice of removal, the remand order “is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); see Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 127–28, 116 S.Ct. 494, 133 L.Ed.2d 461 (1995) (“As long as a district court's remand is based on a timely raised defect in removal procedure or on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction—the grounds for remand recognized by § 1447(c)—a court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal of the remand order under § 1447(d).”). Here, the District Court remanded the action after finding that the notice of removal did not contain sufficient facts to demonstrate federal subject-matter jurisdiction or to show that the notice of removal was timely filed; that the state court pleadings were not attached; and that the notice was not signed by Buhannic's co-defendant. Because these defects constitute “grounds for remand recognized by § 1447(c),” Things Remembered, 516 U.S. at 127, 116 S.Ct. 494, we lack jurisdiction to review the merits of Buhannic's appeal.

We have considered all of Buhannic's arguments with respect to jurisdiction and conclude that they are without merit. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Copied to clipboard