The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the district court erred in its sua sponte remand on the basis of lack of diversity jurisdiction because the Defendant alleged only the residency of one of the parties rather than his citizenship. In Corporate Management vs. Artjen Complexus, 561 F3d 1294 (11th Circ. 2009) the Defendant filed a notice of removal on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. However, the Defendant alleged only the residency of one of the parties rather than his citizenship and since residency is not the equivalent of citizenship for diversity, the District Court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and sua sponte remanded the case to the state court. The Court of Appeals first held that they could grant review even though a remand order based on subject matter jurisdiction is not reviewable. The Court said that it could review whether the District Court exceed its authority by remanding this case because of a perceived procedural defect and removal process without waiting for a party’s motion. The Court concluded that the failure to establish a party’s citizenship at the time of filing the removal notice is a “procedural, rather than a jurisdictional defect.” The Court said,
Here, the Artjen Parties appeal the district court’s refusal to allow them to amend their notice of removal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ? 1447(d)’s prohibition on review of a remand order “on appeal or otherwise.” Because we hold that the district court erred by remanding this case on jurisdictional grounds when faced solely with a procedural defect in the removal process, we direct the district court to permit Artjen leave to amend its notice of removal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ?1653. (pp. 1297-8)