Legal Definitions - fourth-sentence remand

A fourth-sentence remand occurs when a federal court sends a case back to a state court because the federal court determines it lacks the legal authority, or "subject matter jurisdiction," to hear the case. This term originates from a specific sentence in a federal statute (28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)) that mandates a federal court to remand a case if it finds it does not have jurisdiction. Unlike other types of remands where an appellate court might send a case back for a new trial or to correct a legal error, a fourth-sentence remand is purely procedural.

It means the federal court is not deciding the merits of the dispute (who is right or wrong), but simply concluding that the case should never have been brought or removed to federal court in the first place. A significant feature of these remands is that they are generally not subject to review by a higher court, meaning the decision to send the case back to state court is usually final.

• Example 1: Lack of Diversity Jurisdiction

  Imagine a lawsuit involving a car accident where both the driver who caused the accident and the injured party live in the same state. The injured party mistakenly files the lawsuit in federal court, or the defendant attempts to move it there from state court. Federal courts typically require parties to be from different states (known as "diversity jurisdiction") or for the case to involve a federal law (a "federal question") to have the authority to hear it. If the federal judge realizes that both parties are from the same state and no federal law is at issue, the judge would issue a fourth-sentence remand.

  This illustrates a fourth-sentence remand because the federal court is not deciding who was at fault for the accident. Instead, it's concluding that it lacks the legal power to hear a dispute between two residents of the same state on a state law claim, and therefore sends the case back to the appropriate state court. This decision is typically final and cannot be appealed.

• Example 2: No Federal Question Involved

  A local community group sues a developer in state court over a new construction project, alleging violations of local zoning ordinances. The developer, hoping for a more favorable outcome, tries to remove the case to federal court, claiming the zoning dispute somehow involves a federal constitutional issue. After reviewing the legal arguments, the federal judge determines that the core of the dispute is entirely about local land use regulations and does not genuinely raise any significant federal law or constitutional question.

  This is a fourth-sentence remand because the federal court is not ruling on whether the zoning ordinance is valid or whether the developer is complying. It's simply concluding that the case does not belong in federal court because it lacks a proper "federal question" basis for jurisdiction. The case is sent back to the state court, and this remand order is generally not reviewable by a higher court.

• Example 3: Procedural Defect in Removal

  A large corporation is sued in state court by a former employee for wrongful termination. The corporation decides to remove the lawsuit to federal court, but due to an administrative oversight, they miss the strict 30-day deadline for filing the removal paperwork. The former employee's attorney points out this procedural error to the federal court.

  Here, the federal court doesn't examine the merits of the wrongful termination claim itself. Instead, it identifies a critical procedural flaw: the corporation failed to follow the proper legal steps and deadlines for moving the case from state to federal court. Because of this procedural defect, the federal court is mandated to send the case back to the state court. This constitutes a fourth-sentence remand because it's based on a lack of proper procedure for jurisdiction, not on the substance of the dispute, and the remand order is typically not subject to appeal.