Kilgo v. Petsmart, Inc

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 99-50603
_____________________
ANNE KILGO,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PETSMART, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Western District of Texas
(D.C. No. EP-98-CV-482-H)
_______________________________________________________
April 6, 2000
Before REAVLEY, SMITH and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The appeal is dismissed. The remand of a removed action, either due to the
lack of subject matter jurisdiction or to any defect in the removal, may not be
appealed. The removal of a non-removable action is a defect under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1447(c). Albarado v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co., 199 F.3d 762 (5th Cir. 1999).
Actions arising under the workmen’s compensation laws of a state may not be
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.
47.5.4.
removed per 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c). Kilgo’s claim for discrimination against an
employee, because the employee files a compensation claim, arises under the
workmen’s compensation laws of Texas. Sherrod v. American Airlines, Inc., 132
F.3d 1112 (5th Cir. 1998).
DISMISSED.
2