Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

SAWYER v. COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.

March 18, 1994

Thomas Scott Sawyer, Marie Sawyer, Scott Allan Sawyer, and Sean Thomas Sawyer
v.
Commonwealth Edison Company, John Doe Corp., General Electric Company, Sargent & Lundy, Inc., United Engineers & Constructors, Inc., Cochran, Division of Crane, Carrier Mfg., Matthews Conveyor, Mixing Equipment Co., Edler & Co., Consolidated Bailing Co., Delaval, Commercial Machine Works, Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, Johnson Service Co., Pittsburg Des Moines Steel, Reactor Controls, Inc., and American Nuclear Insurers



The opinion of the court was delivered by: JOHN A. NORDBERG

 Before the Court is Plaintiffs Thomas and Bettina Sawyers' Motion to Remand the present case to the Circuit Court of Cook County.

 FACTS

 On September 7, 1993, the Plaintiffs filed a three count complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County against Defendant Commonwealth Edison. The complaint alleged that Thomas Sawyer had contracted chronic myelogenous leukemia as a result of his exposure to radiation at Commonwealth Edison's Quad Cities Cordova nuclear power plant. On September 17, 1993, Commonwealth Edison filed a Notice of Removal to the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois pursuant to Section 2210(n)(2) of the Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988. 42 U.S.C. § 2210(n)(2) (1992).

 One of the United States District Court Judges for the Central District remanded the case on September 24, 1993 to the Circuit Court of Cook County because the case had been "improperly removed to the District Court under 28 U.S.C. 1441." (Docket Entry dated September 24, 1993; Defendant's Exhibit B.) Thereafter, Commonwealth Edison filed a Notice of Removal in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and a Motion to Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Rock Island Division.

 On October 21, 1993, Plaintiffs filed the Motion for Remand which is presently before the Court. Approximately one week later, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint which named nineteen defendants in addition to Commonwealth Edison. These defendants filed a Notice of Removal in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, *fn1" a second Notice of Removal in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and a Motion to Transfer Venue to the Central District of Illinois, Rock Island Division.

 In support of their Motion for Remand, Plaintiffs argue that: (1) the Central District Judge's prior order remanding the case to the Circuit Court of Cook County is not subject to review, reconsideration or appeal; (2) this case does not arise under the Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988; (3) the Price-Anderson Amendments Act is an unconstitutional grant of jurisdiction in violation of Article III of the United States Constitution; and (4) the Price-Anderson Amendments Act violates the Tenth and the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

 ANALYSIS

 Reconsideration of the Central District Judge's Order Remanding the Case to the Circuit Court of Cook County

 Citing 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), Plaintiffs assert that the Central District Judge's order remanding the case to the Circuit Court of Cook County is not reviewable. Section 1447(d) states in relevant part, "an order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d).

 Despite the broad language quoted above, § 1447(d) insulates from appellate review only those remand orders that are authorized by § 1447(c). Hamilton v. Aetna Life and Cas. Co., 5 F.3d 642, 644 (2nd Cir. 1993), cert denied, 127 L. Ed. 2d 413, 114 S. Ct. 1100 (1994) (citing Thermtron Prods. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 345-46, 96 S. Ct. 584, 46 L. Ed. 2d 542 (1976)). *fn2" Section 1447(c) provides in part:

 
A motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect in removal procedure must be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal under section 1446(a). If at any time before final judgement it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.

 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (1993). Thus, only orders which remand a case to state court based on a timely motion asserting a procedural defect or on a lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction are not reviewable. Hamilton, 5 F.3d at 644.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.