Crowe
Crowe v. Lucky Stores, Inc.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM ***
Pro se plaintiffiappellee Kelly Crowe (“Crowe”) filed suit in California state court alleging five separate causes of action arising from the termination of his employment by Defendant/Appellant Lucky Stores (“Lucky”). Lucky removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Before the district court had ruled on Lucky’s motion to dismiss, Lucky filed a counterclaim against Crowe in federal court. Lucky’s counterclaim asserted an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.
The district court dismissed Crowe’s third and fifth causes of action and remanded his remaining claims back to state court. Lucky appeals both the remand order and the district court’s refusal to dismiss the remaining claims.
We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
A. Remand
28 U.S.C. § 1447 governs removal and remand procedures in the district court. Section 1447(c) specifically provides: “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” A district court’s decision to remand for lack of jurisdiction is immune from appellate review. 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (d) (“[A]n…