Frivolous Federal-Officer Removal
In Roberts v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., the Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court order remanding an action to state court. Although remand orders are generally not reviewable on appeal, the defendants in Roberts had invoked federal-officer removal and thus could obtain plenary review. But the Seventh Circuit seemed to think that this invocation of federal-officer removal was frivolous. The court accordingly suggested that the district court consider ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiffs’ fees and costs.
The Roberts Removal & Remand
Simplifying a bit, Roberts stemmed from the horrific mass shooting that took place in Highland Park, Illinois on July 4, 2022. The plaintiffs—victims of the shooting and their estates—sued several defendants, including the companies that manufactured and sold the gun used in the shooting.
The plaintiffs filed in Illinois state court. Some of the defendants then removed the action to federal court. They offered two grounds for removal: and federal-question removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c) and federal-officer removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442. (Although not all of the defendants consented to removal, that was unnecessary given the grounds for removal.)
The district court remanded the action. Some of the defendants then sought review in the Seventh Circuit. And in that appeal, they sought review of both proffered grounds for removal.
The Scope of Remand Reviews
28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) generally bars review from remand orders. But it includes two exceptions. One is federal-officer removal under § 1442. And the Supreme Court held in BP P.L.C. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore that when a defendant invokes § 1442, a court can review all proffered grounds for removal.
The Seventh Circuit could thus review both grounds for removal. And it quickly rejected both. (The opinion came down four days after oral argument.) Though regulated by the federal government, the defendants were not federal agents. Federal-officer removal thus did not apply. Nor did § 1441(c). Removal under that subsection requires multiple claims. And while the plaintiffs presented multiple theories of relief, they pleaded only one claim.
Discouraging Frivolous Invocations of Federal-Officer Removal
When the Supreme Court decided BP, I worried that defendants would make weak arguments for federal-officer removal (or civil-rights removal, § 1447(d)’s other exception) to obtain plenary appellate review:
A broad reading of the exception clause can (and perhaps will) swallow the general prohibition. All defendants need to do to avoid § 1447(d)’s bar is to include a non-frivolous argument for federal-officer or civil-rights removal. . . . So we can expect more—and more complicated—appeals from remand orders, which will undermine § 1447(d)’s general prohibition on remand appeals and its purpose of expediting litigation.
The Supreme Court said in BP that other tools would prevent the abuse of § 1447(d)’s exceptions. Section 1447(c) authorizes district courts to require removing defendants to pay the plaintiff’s fees and costs. Sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 are also available.
I had my doubts as to how often courts would order the payment of fees and costs under § 1447(c) or Rule 11. I was accordingly pleased when the Seventh Circuit ended its opinion in Roberts with a suggestion that the district court require the defendants to pay “the plaintiffs’ costs and fees occasioned by the unjustified removal and appeal.”
This is the first time I’ve seen a court do so after BP. And if defendants continue making frivolous federal-officer-removal arguments, I hope it’s not the last.
Roberts v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., 2024 WL 1506835 (7th Cir. Apr. 8, 2024), available at the Seventh Circuit and Westlaw
Final Decisions PLLC is an appellate boutique and consultancy that focuses on federal appellate jurisdiction. We partner with lawyers facing appellate-jurisdiction issues, working as consultants or co-counsel to achieve positive outcomes on appeal. Contact us to learn how we can work together.
Learn More ContactRelated Posts
In Dubon v. Jaddou, the Fourth Circuit dismissed an appeal from an order remanding a naturalization action to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The court acknowledged that this remand order would be unreviewable in any future proceedings. But it thought that this lack of review was harmless, as the applicant could eventually obtain judicial […]
Continue reading....
In Abraham Watkins Nichols Agosto Aziz & Stogner v. Festeryga, the Fifth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review an order that remanded a removed action because the defendant had waived the right to remove. But the panel doubted that doing so was correct. Indeed, the panel seemed almost certain that its decision was […]
Continue reading....
Courts have held that when an “order” is appealable—say, via a certified appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) or an exception to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d)’s bar on remand appeals—the entirety of the district court’s order is within the scope of appeal. So when a district court certifies an order for an immediate appeal under § 1292(b), the […]
Continue reading....
In LeChase Construction Services, LLC v. Argonaut Insurance Co., the Second Circuit held that 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d)’s bar on remand appeals applied to remands under § 1447(e). But the court also held that it could review a remand that, while purportedly under § 1447(e), was actually based on “a patently nonjurisdictional ground, such as prudential considerations.” (Cleaned […]
Continue reading....
In In re Clean Water Act Rulemaking, the Ninth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to review an order vacating a regulation and remanding the dispute to an agency, as the district court had never deemed the regulation unlawful. This is an interesting twist on the administrative-remand rule. That rule normally bars appeals from orders […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
I’m thrilled to announce the creation of Final Decisions PLLC, an appellate boutique and consultancy focused on appellate jurisdiction. Through it, I hope to partner with lawyers facing complex appellate-jurisdiction issues. Almost six years ago, I started the Final Decisions blog as a way to keep on top of developments in the world of appellate […]
Continue reading....
In New Albany Main Street Properties v. Watco Companies, LLC, the Sixth Circuit held that it could not review a decision granting leave to amend as part of a qualified-immunity appeal. The leave-to-amend decision was not itself immediately appealable. Nor could it tag along with the denial of immunity (which technically involved qualified immunity under […]
Continue reading....
In Ashley v. Clay County, the Fifth Circuit held that a municipal defendant could appeal a district court’s refusal to resolve an immunity defense despite the district court’s ordering arbitration.
Continue reading....
Courts sometimes suggest that would-be appellants must establish appellate standing by showing that the appealed decision injured the would-be appellant. When the appealing party cannot show this injury, these courts think that they have lost Article III jurisdiction. But as a recent opinion from the D.C. Circuit’s Judge Pillard explained, that’s not quite right. Judge […]
Continue reading....
In Silverthorne Seismic, L.L.C. v. Sterling Seismic Services, Ltd., a majority of the Fifth Circuit held that a motions panel had erred in permitting a certified appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The district court had certified for an immediate appeal a decision on how the plaintiffs could prove reasonable-royalty damages in a trade-secret case. The […]
Continue reading....