Background
ColonialWebb Contractors Company filed two separate state court actions against Hill Phoenix, Inc. for breach of contract regarding industrial refrigeration equipment in Colorado and Michigan. Hill Phoenix mistakenly believed the two suits were identical and filed a single notice of removal to federal court, requesting consolidation. The district court clerk consolidated the cases. Later, the district court, acting on its own initiative, remanded the cases to state court, concluding the consolidation was improper. The district court did not address the parties’ arguments regarding forum-selection clauses or the merits of the removal.
The court’s reasoning
Under twenty-eight United States Code section one thousand four hundred forty-seven, orders remanding a case to state court are generally not appealable if based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. However, remand orders based on non-jurisdictional grounds are appealable. The statute requires that motions to remand based on defects other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction be made within thirty days of the notice of removal. A district court is prohibited from remanding a case sua sponte based on a procedural defect absent a timely motion from a party. Since the district court remanded the case on its own initiative regarding the propriety of consolidation, a non-jurisdictional issue, without a timely motion, it exceeded its statutory authority.
We conclude we have appellate jurisdiction to review that order and that the district court lacked statutory authority to issue it.
ColonialWebb Contractors Co. v. Hill Phoenix, Inc., 24-1237 (4th Cir. 2026)
What it means going forward
Federal district courts must wait for a party to file a timely motion before remanding a case on non-jurisdictional procedural grounds, ensuring that appellate review remains available for such errors.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download