Ltc (Bvi) Limited v. Braunhagey & Borden LLP

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUL 27 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS LTC (BVI) LIMITED, No. 22-16252 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 4:22-cv-03481-YGR v. MEMORANDUM* BRAUNHAGEY & BORDEN LLP, Defendant-Appellant. 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. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.  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