Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer

Supreme Court of the United States · 1976 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureRemovalRemandMandamusAppellate Review28 U.S.C. 144128 U.S.C. 144628 U.S.C. 1447(c)

Facts

Two Kentucky plaintiffs sued an Indiana corporation and its Indiana employee in Kentucky state court over an automobile accident. The defendants removed the case to federal district court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446, and the district judge conceded that removal was proper. The judge nevertheless issued an order to show cause and then remanded the case because his court's docket was overcrowded and trial would occur sooner in state court. The defendants argued that the case had been properly removed and that the judge had no statutory authority to remand on that basis.

Issue

May a federal district judge remand a properly removed diversity case for a reason not authorized by the remand statute, such as docket congestion? If not, does 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) bar review by mandamus of such an unauthorized remand order?

Rule

A district court may remand a removed case only on grounds authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Section 1447(d) bars review only of remand orders issued pursuant to § 1447(c) on the ground that the case was removed improvidently and without jurisdiction; it does not bar mandamus when a district court remands on grounds not authorized by the removal statutes.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Sofia Marin sued Lakeview Milling Co., a Wisconsin corporation, in Illinois state court for $200,000 after a warehouse accident in Chicago. The company timely removed on diversity grounds to federal court, and the judge acknowledged complete diversity and the amount in controversy, but remanded because the state court had a specialized calendar that would resolve the dispute faster.

If Lakeview seeks mandamus in the court of appeals, what is the best answer?

Explanation. The majority held that a district court may remand only on grounds authorized by § 1447(c). A remand based on docket management, speed, or similar practical concerns is unauthorized because it does not concern whether removal was improvident and without jurisdiction. When the remand is on such nonstatutory grounds, § 1447(d) does not bar review, and mandamus may issue to require the district court to entertain the case. (Derived from Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer (1976).)