City of Phenix City, Alabama, Phenix City Red Light Safety Program v. Carroll (JOINT ASSIGN)(MAG+)
ORDERED that Defendant Jerry Paul Carroll's 38 motion for a stay of remand is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 4/12/2016. (kh, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
CITY OF PHENIX CITY,
ALABAMA, PHENIX CITY RED
LIGHT SAFETY PROGRAM , et
JERRY PAUL CARROLL,
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-748-WKW
Before the court is Defendant Jerry Paul Carroll’s motion for a stay of
remand. (Doc. # 38.) Defendant seeks a stay pending his anticipated appeal of the
April 5, 2016 order of remand. (Doc. # 37.)
With some exceptions not applicable in this case, “[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); Harris v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Alabama,
Inc., 951 F.2d 325, 330 (11th Cir. 1992). The case Defendant cites in support of
his motion, Dalton v. Walgreen Co., No. 4:13 CV 603 RWS, 2013 WL 2367837
(E.D. Mo. May 29, 2013), which is not binding precedent, is inapplicable. In
Dalton, the usual rule that “an order remanding a case to state court is generally
not reviewable on appeal” did not apply because Dalton (unlike the present case)
was removed pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. §§
1332(d), 1446, 1453. Dalton, 2013 WL 2367837 at *1. CAFA contains an express
exception to § 1447(d)’s prohibition on appeals from remand orders.
2013 WL 2367837 at *1; 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1).
Other exceptions to the
nonappealabity rule of § 1447(d), which allow for appeal of remand orders in cases
removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1443, are also inapplicable here. 28
U.S.C. § 1447(d).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant Jerry Paul Carroll’s motion for
a stay of remand (Doc. # 38) is DENIED.
DONE this 12th day of April, 2016.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?