![]() ![]() The court must, therefore, give effect to both. Though § 1452(b) expressly precludes review of certain remand decisions in bankruptcy cases, there is no reason §§ 1447(d) and 1452 cannot comfortably coexist in the bankruptcy context. Moreover, there is no indication that Congress intended § 1452 to be the exclusive provision governing removals and remands in bankruptcy or to exclude bankruptcy cases from § 1447(d)'s coverage. under, but to orders of remand made in cases removed under any other statutes." United States v. Section 1447(d) applies "not only to remand. The same conclusion pertains regardless of whether the case was removed under § 1441(a) or § 1452(a). Section 1447(d) bars review here, since the District Court's order remanded the case to "the State court from which it was removed," and untimely removal is precisely the type of removal defect contemplated by § 1447(c). e., a timely raised defect in removal procedure or lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, are immune from review under § 1447(d). 336,345-346, § 1447(d) must be read in pari materia with § 1447(c), so that only remands based on the grounds recognized by § 1447(c), i. That section, a provision of the general removal statute, bars appellate review of any "order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed." Under Thermtron Products, Inc. Held: If an order remands a removed bankruptcy case to state court because of a timely raised defect in removal procedure or lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction, a court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to review the order under § 1447(d). The Sixth Circuit dismissed petitioner's appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that §§ 1447(d) and 1452(b) barred appellate review of the District Court's remand order. The District Court reversed and, in effect, remanded the case to state court, holding that the removal was untimely under §§ 1441(a) and 1452(a) and that the Bankruptcy Court lacked jurisdiction. The Bankruptcy Court held that the removal was timely and proper, and that it had jurisdiction. § 1452(a), and the general federal removal statute, § 1441(a). ![]() After Child World filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition, Cole's successor in interest, petitioner here, removed the action to federal court under the bankruptcy removal statute, 28 U. Respondent commenced this action in Ohio state court to collect rent allegedly owed by Child World, Inc., under two commercial leases and to enforce Cole National Corporation's guarantee of Child World's performance under the leases. ![]() Argued October 2, 1995-Decided December 5,1995 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |