## Facts

- Earl Dennler sued Shell Oil Company in Illinois state court for breach of an employment contract, alleging a promised annual salary of $70,000 and seeking damages described as between $15,000 and $50,000.
- Shell removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds, asserting the amount in controversy could exceed the then-$50,000 jurisdictional minimum because the pleadings made a higher recovery legally possible.
- After removal, Dennler moved to remand and filed a stipulation that, if he prevailed, he would not collect more than $50,000.
- The district court remanded to state court without stating the basis for remand.
- Shell petitioned the Seventh Circuit for a writ of mandamus to set aside the remand order.

## Issues

1. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) bars appellate review “on appeal or otherwise” when the district court’s remand order does not disclose whether it rested on § 1447(c) grounds.
2. Whether the amount in controversy for diversity removal is determined at the time of removal, such that a post-removal stipulation capping damages cannot eliminate jurisdiction that was proper when removal occurred.
3. Whether the district court’s unexplained remand justified partial mandamus relief requiring the court to state the grounds for remand.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit held that § 1447(d) bars review only for remands actually based on § 1447(c) (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or procedural defects), and does not bar review of remands on unauthorized grounds.
- The court stated that the amount in controversy is assessed as of the time of removal and that later events, including a plaintiff’s post-removal damages cap, do not divest jurisdiction if it existed at removal.
- The court granted mandamus in part, directing the district judge to explain the basis for remand so the court of appeals could determine whether § 1447(d) precluded further review.

## Legal Principles

- A court of appeals may use mandamus to determine whether a remand order falls within § 1447(c); § 1447(d) forecloses review only when the remand is genuinely jurisdictional or based on a covered procedural defect.
- For diversity removal, the amount in controversy is determined at the time of removal; post-removal reductions or stipulations generally cannot defeat jurisdiction that has already attached.
- A plaintiff may avoid removal by limiting recovery in a binding manner at the outset, but a unilateral post-removal limitation ordinarily cannot retroactively defeat removal jurisdiction.
- When a remand order is unexplained and the basis is uncertain, an appellate court may require the district court to state reasons to permit a § 1447(d) reviewability determination.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit partially granted mandamus because the district court’s unexplained remand prevented determining whether § 1447(d) barred review, and it clarified that diversity jurisdiction is assessed at removal so a post-removal damages-limiting stipulation generally cannot eliminate otherwise proper federal jurisdiction.


In re Shell Oil Co., 966 F.2d 1130 (7th Cir. 1992)