Enter to open, tab to navigate, enter to select
Court Clarifies Magistrate Judge Authority on Motion to Remand Rulings: Fifth Circuit
Practical Law Legal Update w-001-9214 (Approx. 3 pages)
Court Clarifies Magistrate Judge Authority on Motion to Remand Rulings: Fifth Circuit
by Practical Law Litigation
| Published on 21 Apr 2016 • USA (National/Federal) |
In Davidson v. Georgia-Pacific, L.L.C., the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held, in a case of first impression for the circuit, that a motion to remand is a dispositive matter on which a magistrate judge lacks authority to enter an order.
On April 19, 2016, in Davidson v. Georgia-Pacific, L.L.C., the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held, in a matter of first impression for the circuit, that a motion to remand is a dispositive matter for which a magistrate judge should issue a report and recommendation to the district court rather than a nondispositive matter in which the magistrate has the authority to enter an order ( (5th Cir. Apr. 19, 2016)).
In 2010, William Davidson filed a lawsuit in Louisiana state court against numerous defendants alleging that they were responsible for his exposure to asbestos. The case was later moved to federal court. After Davidson passed away, the case was dismissed without prejudice. In 2012, the plaintiffs filed this survival and wrongful death action in Louisiana state court and brought similar claims to those in the first lawsuit. The defendants were the same in both cases except for two nondiverse Louisiana defendants who were included in this case. The defendant, Georgia-Pacific, L.L.C., removed the case to the US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana on the ground that the Louisiana citizenship of the two new defendants should be ignored because they had been improperly joined. The plaintiffs moved to remand the case.
The district court referred the remand motion to a magistrate judge. The magistrate judge issued an order granting the motion to remand. The district court reviewed the magistrate's ruling as a nondispositive matter that could be set aside only if "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." The district court disagreed with the magistrate's analysis and, among other things, denied the motion to remand.
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit joined all other circuits that have considered the question in holding that a motion to remand is a dispositive matter in which only the district court may enter an order and is subject to de novo review. The court reasoned that:
- Although the Federal Magistrates Act does not list a motion to remand as dispositive, other circuits that have considered the issue have determined that a motion to remand should be treated as a dispositive matter (See Flam v. Flam, 788 F.3d 1043, 1046-47 (9th Cir. 2015); Williams v. Beemiller, Inc., 527 F.3d 259, 266 (2d Cir. 2008); Vogel v. U.S. Office Prods. Co., 258 F.3d 509, 517 (6th Cir. 2001); First Union Mortg. Corp. v. Smith, 229 F.3d 992, 995-96 (10th Cir. 2000); In re U.S. Healthcare, 159 F.3d 142, 145-46 (3d Cir. 1998)).
- There should be a narrow reading of the matters on which a magistrate judge may enter orders without de novo review.
- Treating a motion to remand as nondispositive would create a situation in which an Article III judge might never exercise de novo review of a case.
- A merits determination is not a necessary feature of a dispositive matter since requests for a preliminary injunctions and class certification are considered dispositive under the Federal Magistrates Act.
Notably, the Fifth Circuit added that classifying motions to remand as dispositive avoids:
- A potential collision between the review provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) and the statute and rule governing magistrate rulings on nondispositive matters (28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); FRCP 72(a)).
- A timing problem that would result even if the magistrate-specific review provisions govern a magistrate's entry of a remand order.