And, “because we have appellate jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal of assertion of Eleventh Amendment immunity, we also have appellate jurisdiction to determine whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying claim against defendants in the first instance.” Timpanogos Tribe v. The State's motion for remand here involved such a claim. But States “may take advantage of the collateral order doctrine to appeal a district court order denying a claim of Eleventh Amendment immunity.” P.R. Ordinarily, an interlocutory appeal may not be taken from the denial of a motion to remand a previously removed case. The State now appeals, challenging both of these holdings. The district court also discussed the relatively unexplored question of federal subject matter jurisdiction supporting removal, holding that the State's action for damages caused by a commercial vessel on navigable waters was a “civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction” and thus within its original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. The district court agreed with defendants' view regarding the scope of the Eleventh Amendment and denied the State's motion for remand. In its subsequent reply, the State reargued the Eleventh Amendment point and, in the course of that argument, also asserted in passing that its tort complaint had not raised a federal question. Defendants responded by arguing that the Eleventh Amendment applies to suits brought against the States, not to suits brought by a State. The State promptly moved to remand the case back to Muskogee County district court on the ground that removal subjected it to an involuntary assertion of federal court process and thereby violated its immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. Shortly after the state action was commenced, defendants filed a notice of removal in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, broadly alleging several bases for federal jurisdiction in support of removal under 28 U.S.C. The tugboat was owned and operated by defendant Magnolia Marine Transport Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of defendant Ergon, Inc., and was under the command of defendant William Joe Dedmon at the time of the accident. The collision caused a portion of the bridge to collapse, resulting in death or serious injury to numerous people as well as substantial property damage. The State filed this tort action in the District Court of Muskogee County, Oklahoma, to recover damages it incurred when a tugboat pushing two barges on the Arkansas River collided with the Interstate 40 bridge near Webber Falls, Oklahoma.
1Ī brief recitation of the immediately pertinent facts should suffice to put the legal questions in context. Accordingly, we remand the case for further consideration of several alternative bases for federal question jurisdiction invoked in defendants' petition for removal. As explained below, we take jurisdiction of this interlocutory appeal under a particular variant of the collateral order doctrine, and, on the merits, hold that (1) the State's Eleventh Amendment immunity did not bar removal, but (2) the specific basis for federal question jurisdiction relied on by the district court was insufficient to support removal. The State asserts that removal of the case both violated the Eleventh Amendment and rested on an erroneous assertion of federal question jurisdiction. The plaintiff State of Oklahoma appeals from the denial of its motion to remand this case back to state court. Wohlgemuth of Norman Wohlgemuth Chandler & Dowdell, Tulsa, OK, for Defendant-Appellee William Joseph Dedmon. Michael Burrage and Sean Burrage, of Burrage Law Firm, Durant, OK, for Defendants-Appellees Magnolia Marine Transport Company and Ergon, Inc. Eldridge, Assistant Attorneys General, Litigation Section, Oklahoma City, OK, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Decided: February 24, 2004īefore McCONNELL, ANDERSON, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.Į. MAGNOLIA MARINE TRANSPORT COMPANY, a Mississippi corporation Ergon, Inc., a Mississippi corporation William Joe Dedmon, Defendants-Appellees. Drew EDMONDSON, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. United States Court of Appeals,Tenth Circuit.
0 kommentar(er)
