McMahon

MEMORANDUM **

Defendants appeal the district court’s order remanding counts one and four of plaintiffs’ complaint to state court. We affirm.

We have jurisdiction over this appeal. Our review of the remand order is not barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (d). There is an exception to the bar under that statute if the remand order is not based on defective removal or lack of subject matter jurisdiction at the time of removal. See Reddam v. KPMG LLP, 457 F.3d 1054, 1058 (9th Cir.2006). The present remand order was based on a resolution on the merits of a matter of substantive law, and is therefore appealable, under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , as a collaterally final order. See Lyons v. Alaska Teamsters Employer Service Corp., 188 F.3d 1170, 1172 (9th Cir. 1999)

The premise of the district court’s remand order was that the settlement agreement entered into and put on the record in state court, specifically the portion of the stipulated order of dismissal which provided that the state court would retain jurisdiction over future disputes that might arise regarding the settlement agreement, amounted to an agreement to place exclusive jurisdiction over such disputes in the state court. We have held that…