## Facts

- HIF Bio sued Carlsbad Technology and others in California state court alleging state and federal claims arising from a patent-related dispute.
- Carlsbad removed the action to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c) based on the presence of a federal RICO claim.
- The district court dismissed the RICO claim for failure to state a claim.
- After dismissing the only claim within its original jurisdiction, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
- The district court remanded the remaining claims to state court.
- The Federal Circuit dismissed Carlsbad’s appeal, holding that 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) barred appellate review because the remand could be characterized as jurisdictional.
- The Supreme Court granted review to determine whether the remand order was appealable.

## Issues

1. Whether a remand order entered after a district court declines supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) is a remand “for lack of subject matter jurisdiction” under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
2. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) bars appellate review of such a remand order.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed.
- The Court held that a remand following a discretionary decline of supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c) is not a remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under § 1447(c).
- Because the remand was not based on a § 1447(c) ground, § 1447(d) did not bar appellate review.
- The case was remanded to the court of appeals for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Once a federal court has original jurisdiction over at least one claim, § 1367(a) grants supplemental subject-matter jurisdiction over related state-law claims forming the same case or controversy.
- Dismissal of all claims within original jurisdiction does not eliminate the court’s statutory supplemental jurisdiction; it leaves the court with discretion under § 1367(c) whether to exercise it.
- A district court’s decision under § 1367(c) is discretionary, not jurisdictional, even when it results in remand of state-law claims.
- Section 1447(d) bars appellate review only for remands ordered on the grounds specified in § 1447(c) (including lack of subject-matter jurisdiction); remands based on discretionary declination of supplemental jurisdiction are reviewable.

## Conclusion

A district court’s remand to state court after declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c) rests on discretion rather than a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, so § 1447(d) does not bar appellate review of the remand order.


Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635 (2009)