Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v. Christopher M. Hunt

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-14225
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS,
as Trustee,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHRISTOPHER M. HUNT,
and All Others,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
USCA11 Case: 22-14225 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 09/01/2023 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-14225
D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-01173-MHC
____________________
Before L AGOA , BRASHER , and A NDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher M. Hunt, appealing pro se, challenges the dis-
trict court’s denial of his motion to recall the remand to state court
of an action filed by Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas
(“DBTCA”) against him arising out of foreclosure proceedings
against Hunt’s home, which Hunt removed to federal court before
the district court sua sponte remanded for lack of subject matter ju-
risdiction. DBTCA moved to dismiss Hunt’s appeal of the denial,
arguing that we lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s de-
nial of Hunt’s motion to recall the remand because it was effec-
tively a challenge to the unreviewable remand order. We dis-
missed Hunt’s appeal to the extent that he sought review of the
original remand order and carried DBTCA’s motion with the case
to the extent that Hunt sought review of the district court’s order
denying his motion to recall the remand. On appeal, Hunt argues
that the district court erred in denying his motion because the state
court had no jurisdiction over his claims, DBTCA defrauded the
court in manufacturing state jurisdiction, Hunt presented constitu-
tional issues that must be decided in federal court, and DBTCA
lacks standing to be in any court.
We review de novo “a district court’s interpretation and ap-
plication of statutory provisions that go to whether the court has
USCA11 Case: 22-14225 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 09/01/2023 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

22-14225 Opinion of the Court 3
subject matter jurisdiction.” United States v. Tinoco, 304 F.3d 1088,
1114 (11th Cir. 2002).
Generally, “[a]n order remanding a case to the State court
from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or other-
wise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). However, only remand orders issued
under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) are immune from review under § 1447(d).
Thermtron Prods., Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 346 (1976), ab-
rogated on other grounds by Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S.
706, 714-15 (1996); see also New v. Sports & Recreation, Inc., 114 F.3d
1092, 1095-96 (11th Cir. 1997). Remands for which review is barred
under § 1447(c) include remands based on lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and remands based on a defect in the removal proce-
dure. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Whole Health Chiropractic & Wellness, Inc.
v. Humana Med. Plan, Inc., 254 F.3d 1317, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001).
When a district court remands a case to state court for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction, it cannot review its decision by en-
tertaining a motion for reconsideration. Bender v. Mazda Motor
Corp., 657 F.3d 1200, 1204 (11th Cir. 2011) (holding that § 1447(d)
prohibits a district court from reconsidering its remand order be-
cause the district court no longer had jurisdiction over the case);
Harris v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Ala., Inc., 951 F.2d 325, 330 (11th
Cir. 1992) (holding that the district court could not reconsider its
remand order because it was based on § 1447(c)).
In In re Loudermilch, 158 F.3d 1143 (11th Cir. 1998), we held
that, while § 1447(d)’s prohibition on appellate review of remand
orders was “strict,” we nevertheless had jurisdiction to rule on a
USCA11 Case: 22-14225 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 09/01/2023 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4 Opinion of the Court 22-14225
post-remand mandamus petition because the petition did not in-
volve a review of the remand order itself but was instead “an as-
sessment of the district court’s jurisdiction to have reviewed or re-
considered” the remand order. Id. at 1145 n.2. Likewise, in Bender,
we affirmed a district court’s denial of a motion for reconsideration
of its prior order remanding the case for lack of subject matter ju-
risdiction. Bender, 657 F.3d at 1201–04.
Here, while we have jurisdiction to review the district
court’s denial of Hunt’s motion to recall the remand to state court,
the district court did not err in finding that it lacked subject matter
jurisdiction to reconsider the remand order because it remanded to
state court due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1447(c)–(d); Bender, 657 F.3d at 1202-04; Harris, 951 F.2d at 330.
AFFIRMED.1
1 Hunt’s motions “For Leave to File Supplemental Brief of New Supreme
Court Ruling and Appellees Fraud on Courts” and “For Leave to File Addi-
tional Supplemental Brief Requesting Appellees Prove Standing in Court with
Additional Fraud on Courts” are DENIED.
USCA11 Case: 22-14225 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 09/01/2023 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --