Remand Orders in ERISA Cases: When Are They Reviewable in the 11th Circuit?

Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer is a Supreme Court case that says federal courts can review orders to send cases back to state court, but only in certain situations. This applies to cases involving employee benefits under ERISA, a federal law. The 11th Circuit has a test for determining when state claims are completely controlled by ERISA, and it has four parts. In some cases, lawsuits filed in state court can be moved to federal court if they involve a federal law called ERISA. This can happen if the lawsuit is about a specific part of ERISA called §502 complete preemption. However, not all ERISA-related lawsuits will be moved to federal court, and some may stay in state court to decide if they are affected by a different part of ERISA called §514 conflict preemption. When a case is moved to federal court but then sent back to state court because it doesn’t actually fall under §502 complete preemption, there can be a lot of legal issues to deal with. The rules for moving a case back to state court are set by a law called Title 28 U.S.C. §1447(c). If a district court decides it doesn’t have the right to hear a case, it has to send the case back to state court within a certain time frame. In simple terms, federal appellate courts are usually not allowed to review decisions made by district courts to send cases back to state courts, even if the district court’s decision is wrong. This rule is meant to prevent delays in the state court system. However, there are some exceptions to this rule, such as when the district court’s decision is based on reasons not allowed by the law. This rule has been in place since 1976, but it can be complicated and exceptions can apply. The Supreme Court said that courts can review a remand decision if it’s based on reasons not listed in the law. Before this, courts couldn’t usually review remand decisions. Since then, different courts have made different decisions about when remand decisions can be reviewed. Some say they can be reviewed if the federal claims were dropped, or if only some state law claims were preempted by federal law. Others say they can be reviewed if the case was removed under a different law than usual. In some cases, courts can review decisions to send a case back to state court if it’s based on the rights of the parties involved. The 11th Circuit court has been very strict about when they can review these decisions, to make things less confusing and more predictable. They’ve said that they can’t review a decision if it’s based on the district court not having jurisdiction. This helps keep things consistent and reduces legal fights. The 11th Circuit Court ruled that if a district court’s decision to send a case back to state court is based on a jurisdictional issue, then it can’t be appealed. This happened in a case where the court remanded a case to state court because it didn’t have jurisdiction over the claims. Even if the district court made a decision about the law, it doesn’t open the decision up for appeal. If the district court dismisses some claims and sends the others back to state court, the appeal also can’t happen. The “separableness exception” comes from a case called City of Waco v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. in 1934. This exception allows appellate courts to review certain district court orders that are separate from orders of remand to state court. In simple terms, it means that some decisions by the district court can be appealed even though the overall case has been sent back to state court. This exception is important because it allows for important legal issues to be reviewed by higher courts, even if the rest of the case is not eligible for appeal. The 11th Circuit court explained that there are different rules for when they can review a remand order from a lower court. They can review a remand order if it involves a substantive legal issue that the state court can’t change. But they can’t review a remand order if it’s just about the lower court’s decision on whether it had the right to hear the case. This means that sometimes the court can review a remand order and sometimes it can’t, depending on the reasons for the remand. This rule is meant to follow the specific purpose of the law. If a court dismisses a case because the plaintiff failed to properly state their claim under a certain law, any remaining state law claims should be sent back to the state court. In this situation, the court’s decision to send the state law claims back to state court likely cannot be reviewed by a higher court. However, if you disagree with the court’s decision, you should talk to a lawyer who knows about appeals to make sure you don’t accidentally give up your right to challenge the decision. Even if a remand order is usually not reviewable, there are some ways to still challenge it. One way is to have it certified for review by a higher court. Another way is if the remand was based on dismissing a party, that dismissal can be reviewed. The Supreme Court has also approved using a writ of mandamus to challenge a remand order that was outside the district court’s authority. And in some cases, if the remand was based on substantive law rather than jurisdiction, it can be appealed as a “collateral order” under the law. In some cases, federal courts have jurisdiction over lawsuits even if the plaintiff tries to bring the case in state court. This is because some types of claims are considered federal by law, no matter how the plaintiff describes them. However, there are still some types of remand orders that can be reviewed by the court, and some that cannot. For example, a remand based on a decision about a forum selection clause in a contract can be reviewed, but a remand based on a finding of no federal preemption cannot be reviewed. Basically, when a court makes a decision, there are rules about when and how it can be reviewed by a higher court. The decision has to be a final one, and it can’t be about something that’s not directly related to the case. There are some specific cases where the decision can be reviewed, even if the case isn’t over yet. And there’s a fancy legal term for those types of cases. This is an article written by a lawyer who specializes in handling appeals in court. She focuses on health and managed care law and works in both federal and state courts. The article discusses different legal cases related to remand orders and provides examples of court decisions. It was submitted on behalf of the Appellate Practice Section.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/remand-orders-in-erisa-cases-when-are-they-reviewable-in-the-11th-circuit/