Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer

Background

Two Kentucky residents sued an Indiana company (Thermtron) and its Indiana employee after a car accident in Kentucky state court seeking damages. The defendants removed the case to federal court based on diversity. The federal judge later ordered the case remanded because his federal docket was crowded, and the defendants asked an appeals court for a mandamus order to keep the case in federal court; the appeals court declined, citing a statute that generally bars review of remand orders.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether a federal judge may send back a properly removed case for reasons the removal statutes do not authorize, and whether mandamus can correct such a remand. The Court explained that the statutes allow remand only when a case was removed improvidently and without jurisdiction. Because this remand rested on docket congestion rather than those statutory grounds, the District Judge exceeded his authority. The Court held that the statutory bar on reviewing remands applies only to remands made under the statute, and that mandamus is available to correct an unauthorized remand.

Real world impact

The decision protects defendants who properly remove diversity cases to federal court from being sent back just because a judge’s federal docket is full. Appeals courts can use mandamus to restore federal cases wrongly remanded for nonstatutory reasons, while ordinary remands under the statute remain unreviewable. The ruling is procedural and does not decide the underlying injury claim.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Rehnquist dissented, arguing Congress intended the remand bar to be absolute and warning the majority’s rule will reopen an avenue for delay that Congress had closed.