28 U.S.C. § 1447

Procedure after removal generally

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) In any case removed from a State court, the district court may issue all necessary orders and process to bring before it all proper parties whether served by process issued by the State court or otherwise.(b) It may require the removing party to file with its clerk copies of all records and proceedings in such State court or may cause the same to be brought before it by writ of certiorari issued to such State court.(c) A motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal under section 1446(a). If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded. An order remanding the case may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal. A certified copy of the order of remand shall be mailed by the clerk to the clerk of the State court. The State court may thereupon proceed with such case.(d) An order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise, except that an order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed pursuant to section 1442 or 1443 of this title shall be reviewable by appeal or otherwise.(e) If after removal the plaintiff seeks to join additional defendants whose joinder would destroy subject matter jurisdiction, the court may deny joinder, or permit joinder and remand the action to the State court.(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 939; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 84, 63 Stat. 102; Pub. L. 88–352, title IX, § 901, July 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 266; Pub. L. 100–702, title X, § 1016(c), Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4670; Pub. L. 102–198, § 10(b), Dec. 9, 1991, 105 Stat. 1626; Pub. L. 104–219, § 1, Oct. 1, 1996, 110 Stat. 3022; Pub. L. 112–51, § 2(d), Nov. 9, 2011, 125 Stat. 546.)Historical and Revision Notes1948 Act

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§ 71, 72, 74, 76, 80, 81 and 83 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §§ 28, 29, 31, 33, 37 and 38, 36 Stat. 1094–1098; Jan. 20, 1914, ch. 11, 39 Stat. 278; Aug. 23, 1916, ch. 399, 39 Stat. 532; Apr. 16, 1920, ch. 146, 41 Stat. 554; Jan. 31, 1928, ch. 14, § 1, 45 Stat. 54).

Section consolidates procedural provisions of sections 71, 72, 74, 76, 80, 81 and 83 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with important changes in substance and phraseology.

Subsection (a) is derived from sections 72, 76, 81 and 83 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed. The remaining provisions of said section 83 are the basis of section 1448 of this title.

Subsection (b) is derived from sections 72, 74, 76 and 83 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., which have been rewritten to provide the utmost simplicity and flexibility of procedure in bringing the State court record to the district court.

[Editorial Note.—Subsecs. (c), (d) and (e) as originally revised and incorporated in this section read as follows:

“(c) It may order the pleadings recast and the parties realigned according to their real interest.

“(d) If any party fails to comply with its lawful orders, the district court may enter such further orders and judgments as justice requires.

“(e) If at any time before final judgment it appears that the case was removed improvidently and without jurisdiction, the district court shall remand the case. A certified copy of the order of remand shall be mailed by its clerk to the clerk of the State court. The State court may thereupon proceed with such case.”]

Subsections (c) and (d) are substituted for unnecessary and inconsistent procedural provisions.

Subsection (e) [now subsec. (c)] is derived from sections 71 and 80 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed. Such subsection is rewritten to eliminate the cumbersome procedure of remand. Under this chapter as revised, the petition for removal under section 1446 of this chapter will be filed in the Federal court in the first instance and the right of removal determined in that court before the petition is granted.

The provisions in section 80 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., relating to actions commenced in district courts, as distinguished from actions removed thereto, are incorporated in section 1359 of this title. Other provisions of said section 80 appear in section 1919 of this title.

1949 Act

This section strikes out subsections (c) and (d) of section 1447 of title 28, U.S.C., as covered by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and adds a new subsection to such section 1447 to remove any doubt that the former law as to the finality of an order of remand to a State court is continued. This section also amends renumbered subsection (c) to remove any doubt that the former law authorizing the district court upon remand to order payment of costs is continued.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2011—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 112–51 inserted “1442 or” before “1443”.

1996—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 104–219 substituted “any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction” for “any defect in removal procedure” in first sentence.

1991—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 102–198 substituted “removing party” for “petitioner”.

1988—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 100–702, § 1016(c)(1), amended subsec. (c) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (c) read as follows: “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the case was removed improvidently and without jurisdiction, the district court shall remand the case, and may order the payment of just costs. A certified copy of the order of remand shall be mailed by its clerk to the clerk of the State court. The State court may thereupon proceed with such case.”

Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 100–702, § 1016(c)(2), added subsec. (e).

1964—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 88–352, inserted exception provision.

1949—Subsec. (c). Act May 24, 1949, § 84(a), struck out former subsecs. (c) and (d), renumbered former subsec. (e) to be subsec. (c) and inserted at end of first sentence of new subsec. (c) “and may order the payment of just costs”.

Subsec. (d). Act May 24, 1949, § 84(b), added subsec. (d).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesException to Subsection (d)

Act Aug. 4, 1947, ch. 458, § 3(c), 61 Stat. 732, provides in part that the United States shall have the right to appeal from any order of remand entered in any case removed to a United States district court pursuant to the provisions of act Apr. 12, 1926, ch. 115, 44 Stat. 239. These acts referred to herein relate to restrictions on land of the Five Civilized Tribes of Oklahoma and are set out as notes under section 355 of Title 25, Indians.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 15,550 cases (7,047 in the last 5 years), 1940–2026 · leading case: Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635 (2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635 (2009). · cites it 12× “II Appellate review of remand orders is limited by 28 U. S. C. §1447 (d), which states: “An order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise, except that an order remanding a case to the State court from which it was…”

Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 547 U.S. 633 (2006). · cites it 18× “Title 28 U. S. C. § 1447 (d) limits appellate review of a district court order remanding a case from federal to state *636 court.”

Osborn v. Haley, 549 U.S. 225 (2007). · cites it 12× “for purposes of removal," bar remand even if the federal court determines that the United States should not be substituted as defendant in place of the federal employee; and (3) does 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (d)'s bar on appellate review of remand orders override § 2679(d)(2)'s…”

Hernandez v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 347 F. Supp. 3d 921 (D.N.M. 2018). · cites it 20× “as an Additional Party, and to Remand Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (e), filed November 30, 2017 (Doc.”

Academy of Country Music v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 991 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2021). · cites it 7× “SUMMARY * Jurisdiction / Remand The panel vacated the district court’s order sua sponte remanding this civil action to state court, based on the panel’s determination that the transmittal of the remand order did not deprive federal courts of jurisdiction and that review was not…”

Grancare v. Ruth Thrower, 889 F.3d 543 (9th Cir. 2018). · cites it 4× “THROWER SUMMARY* Remand / Removal The panel affirmed the district court’s order remanding a case that GranCare LLC had removed to federal court and awarding costs and attorney’s fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c), after finding that GranCare administrator Remy Rhodes was not…”

Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 551 U.S. 224 (2007). · cites it 8× “When we granted certiorari, however, we asked the parties also to address whether the Ninth Circuit had appellate jurisdiction in light of 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (d). I The procedural history of this case is long and complicated; we recount only what is necessary to resolve the writ…”

Buffalo State Alumni Ass'n v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 251 F. Supp. 3d 566 (W.D.N.Y. 2017). · cites it 14× “5); (3) the statutory language of 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (e) renders it inapplicable to amendments as a matter of course under Fed.”

Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc., 519 F.3d 192 (4th Cir. 2008). · cites it 9× “The defendants appeal the remand order, and the plaintiff, in reply, urges that we dismiss the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (d), which provides that “[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not renewable on appeal or otherwise.”

Deborah Cook v. Gerald Wikler John Palko, John Palko, Defendant/third Party v. Tonkinson, P.O., Badge No. 708, Third Party Police Officer Tonkinson, 320 F.3d 431 (3rd Cir. 2003). · cites it 19× “Because we lack jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a remand order entered “on the basis of any defect,” 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c) (Supp.2002), we will dismiss the appeal.”

Charles Powers, Marguerite Powers v. The Southland Corp. T/a 7-Eleven Robert Yeager, 4 F.3d 223 (3rd Cir. 1993). · cites it 21× “Yeager and Southland, while not contesting the remand, respond that we have jurisdiction and that the district court erred in permitting the relation back amendment.”

BP p.l.c. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 593 U.S. 230 (2021). · cites it 5× “The only question before us is one of civil proce- dure: Does 28 U. S. C. §1447 (d) permit a court of appeals to review any issue in a district court order remanding a case to state court where the defendant premised removal in part on the federal officer removal statute, §1442,…”

Show all 15,550 citing cases →

— 28 U.S.C. § 1447(C) — 1 case

Russell v. Sprint Corp., 264 F. Supp. 2d 955 (D. Kan. 2003).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) — 116 cases

Academy of Country Music v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 991 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2021). “SUMMARY * Jurisdiction / Remand The panel vacated the district court’s order sua sponte remanding this civil action to state court, based on the panel’s determination that the transmittal of the remand order did not deprive federal courts of jurisdiction and that review was not…”

Banowsky v. Backstrom, 445 P.3d 543 (Wash. 2019).

Rutherford v. Merck & Co., Inc., 428 F. Supp. 2d 842 (S.D. Ill. 2006).

Blackburn v. Oaktree Capital Mgmt., LLC, 511 F.3d 633 (6th Cir. 2008).

In Re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 220 F. Supp. 2d 414 (E.D. Pa. 2002).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) — 24 cases

Eric Rothner D/B/A Chicago Game Co., & D/B/A Bell Vending, Inc. v. City of Chicago, a Mun. Corp., 879 F.2d 1402 (7th Cir. 1989).

Jane Doe v. Off. of Refugee Resettlement, 884 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 2018).

People of the State of California v. Express Scripts, Inc., 139 F.4th 763 (9th Cir. 2025).

Lewis v. Ford Motor Co., 685 F. Supp. 2d 557 (W.D. Pa. 2010).

State Tax Comm'n v. Union Carbide Corp., 386 F. Supp. 250 (D. Idaho 1974).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e) — 33 cases

Buffalo State Alumni Ass'n v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 251 F. Supp. 3d 566 (W.D.N.Y. 2017). “5); (3) the statutory language of 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (e) renders it inapplicable to amendments as a matter of course under Fed.”

Paul S. Burka, & Robert A. Burka, Trs. v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 87 F.3d 478 (D.C. Cir. 1996).

Hydro-Action, Inc. v. James, 233 F. Supp. 2d 836 (E.D. Tex. 2002).

Mangold v. Analytic Servs., Inc., 77 F.3d 1442 (4th Cir. 1996).

Akmal v. Walgreens Co. (E.D. Cal. 2022).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.