Sending damages suits to state court

1. An abstention-based remand order is appealable under 28 U. S. C. § 1291. Section 1447(d)-which provides that "[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise"--interposes no bar to appellate review of the order at issue. Only remands based on grounds specified in § 1447(c) are immune from review under § 1447(d), and the District Court's order in this case does not fall into either category of remand order described in § 1447(c): It is not based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction or defects in removal procedure. 2. Federal courts have the power to dismiss or remand cases based on abstention principles only where the relief sought is equitable or otherwise discretionary. Because this was a damages action, the District Court's remand order was an unwarranted application of the Burford doctrine. 47 F. 3d 350, affirmed.

Result

Affirmed

The Court said federal law blocks review only when a case is sent back because the federal court lacks power to hear it or removal rules were broken; neither applied here. It also said federal judges may step aside under Burford only when a case seeks a fairness-based remedy or other relief the judge may choose to grant, not money damages.

The federal district court can continue with the damages case, but the Supreme Court did not decide whether Allstate is entitled to damages.