Ficus Villas Condo Association, Inc. v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Co.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________

No. 20-12166
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-21882-FAM

FICUS VILLAS CONDO ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HARTFORD STEAM BOILER INSPECTION AND INSURANCE CO.,

Defendant-Appellant.
________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(December 29, 2020)
USCA11 Case: 20-12166 Date Filed: 12/29/2020 Page: 1 of 4

2

Before JORDAN, GRANT, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company appeals the district
court’s orders: (1) sua sponte remanding this removed case back to state court after
Hartford Steam missed its deadline to answer the complaint by three days; and
(2) denying its motion for reconsideration of the remand order because the pending
appeal mooted the reconsideration motion. Ficus Villas Condominium Association
confesses that the district court erred as to both orders, and we agree.
As to the district court’s sua sponte remand order, under 28 U.S.C. section
1447(c), a district court can remand a removed case back to state court only if it
determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, or if a party moves to remand the
case because of a defect in the removal process. See Whole Health Chiropractic &
Wellness, Inc. v. Humana Med. Plan, Inc., 254 F.3d 1317, 1319–21 (11th Cir. 2001)
(Section 1447(c) “does not authorize any sua sponte remand order not based on
subject matter jurisdiction . . . .
We hold that the district court exceeded its authority
under [section] 1447(c) by remanding this case because of a perceived procedural
defect in the removal process without waiting for a party’s motion.” (emphasis
omitted)). Here, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
section 1332(a), and Ficus Villas did not file a motion to remand. Thus, the district
court erred in sua sponte remanding the case. See Yusefzadeh v. Nelson, Mullins,
USCA11 Case: 20-12166 Date Filed: 12/29/2020 Page: 2 of 4

3

Riley & Scarborough, LLP, 365 F.3d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2004) (“A court, which
has subject matter jurisdiction, may not remand the case sua sponte because there is
no valid reason for the court to decline the exercise of jurisdiction. There is no
evidence before this court indicating that the district court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction; the parties were diverse and the amount in controversy requirement was
satisfied. Moreover, the district court itself did not say in its remand order that it
lacked subject matter jurisdiction. All other procedural defects associated with the
removal, if any, could only have been raised by Yusefzadeh within the allotted time
period of 28 U.S.C. [section] 1447(c). Therefore, the district court erred in
remanding this case sua sponte.” (quotations omitted)).
As to the district court’s denial of Hartford Steam’s motion for
reconsideration, the motion for reconsideration was not moot, as the district court
concluded, because the notice of appeal was not “effective” until the district court
disposed of the reconsideration motion. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i) (“If a party
files a notice of appeal after the court announces or enters a judgment—but before it
disposes of any motion listed in Rule 4(a)(4)(A)—the notice becomes effective to
appeal a judgment or order, in whole or in part, when the order disposing of the last
such remaining motion is entered.”). By rule, the notice of appeal filed during the
pendency of the reconsideration motion was “simply suspended” and the district
court “retained jurisdiction to consider” it. See Stansell v. Revolutionary Armed
USCA11 Case: 20-12166 Date Filed: 12/29/2020 Page: 3 of 4

4

Forces of Colom., 771 F.3d 713, 745–46 (11th Cir. 2014). The district court erred
in finding that Hartford Steam’s pending notice of appeal mooted the reconsideration
motion.
We reverse the orders under review and remand for the district court to
consider the merits of Hartford Steam’s reconsideration motion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

USCA11 Case: 20-12166 Date Filed: 12/29/2020 Page: 4 of 4