ALLEGHANY CORPORATION, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, RESPONDENTS, AND FRANK M. SINGER, REAL PARTY IN INTEREST

9th Cir. | 1989-08-04
No. 89-70270
Before TANG, PREGERSON and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
881 F.2d 777 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1989)
Cited by 5 cases

Opinion of the Court

The petition for writ of mandamus, seeking review of the district court’s order remanding this action to state court, is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); Schmitt v. Insurance Co. of North America, 845 F. 2d 1546, 1549 (9th Cir.1988). The district court remanded this action on the ground that the petitioner had not complied with the statutory time limitations governing removal set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).

28 U.S.C. section 1447(d), however, bars appellate review of orders remanding a case to state court unless the order is based on a ground “wholly different” from the grounds authorized by the removal statute. Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 344, 96 S.Ct. 584, 589, 46 L.Ed.2d 542 (1976). A remand order based on a petitioner’s failure to comply with section 1446(b)’s time limitation is not based on a ground “wholly different” from the grounds for remand authorized by section 1447(c). Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw