Ltc (bvi) Limited v. Braunhagey & Borden Llp

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LTC (BVI) LIMITED,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
BRAUNHAGEY & BORDEN LLP,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 22-16252
D.C. No. 4:22-cv-03481-YGR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted July 12, 2023
San Francisco, California
Before: S.R. THOMAS, BENNETT, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
BraunHagey & Borden LLP appeals from the district court’s order granting
in part LTC (BVI) Limited’s (“LTC”) motion to remand in an action that
BraunHagey removed from state court to federal court based on diversity
jurisdiction.
FILED
JUL 27 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

-- 1 of 2 --

We have jurisdiction to decide whether we have jurisdiction. United States
v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 628 (2002). In this case we do not. We lack jurisdiction
over this appeal because the district court properly remanded the case pursuant to
the forum-defendant rule, which is a “non-jurisdictional defect subject to the 30-
day time limit imposed by [28 U.S.C. ]§ 1447(c).” Lively v. Wild Oats Mkts., Inc.,
456 F.3d 933, 942 (9th Cir. 2006). The district court had the authority to remand
because LTC properly moved to remand “within 30 days after the filing of the
notice of removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see id. § 1447(d) (stating that, absent an
exception inapplicable here, “[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from
which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise”); Thermtron
Prods., Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 346 (1976) (holding that “only
remand orders issued under § 1447(c) and invoking the grounds specified
therein . . . are immune from review under § 1447(d)”), abrogated on other
grounds by Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706 (1996).
DISMISSED.1
1 Appellant’s request for judicial notice (Dkt. No. 24) is DENIED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --