F. Frederic Fouad, Plaintiff v. The Milton Hershey School and School Trust, Elliot Greenleaf P.C., Peter Gurt, Ralph Carfagno, Robert Heist, Velma Redmond, David Saltzman, James W. Brown, M. Diane Koken, James M. Mead, Melissa L. Peeples-Fullmore, Jan Loeffler Bergen, Andrew S. Cline, and Jarad W. Handelman, Defendants1 OPINION & ORDER Given the long and complicated procedural history of this case, it should perhaps come as little surprise that the case now presents an unprecedented procedural issue. The principal question before the Court on the present motion to remand is whether, where a transferor court determines that subject matter jurisdiction exists, denies remand, and instead transfers the case; and the transferee court subsequently revisits the jurisdictional determination, concludes that there is no subject matter jurisdiction, and remands the case to state court in the transferor’s district, a subsequent removal to the transferor court, on the same grounds as the first removal, is barred under 28 U.S.C. §1447(d) because it would require the transferor to review the transferee’s remand order. Having carefully considered the parties’ arguments against the small body of caselaw that can fairly be called analogous, the Court holds that §1447(d) bars it from revisiting the question of whether the federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Even if §1447(d) were inapplicable, the general rule against successive removals on the same grounds would bar review here. Accordingly, the Court remands the case to the New York County Supreme Court. BACKGROUND2 On June 18, 2018, Plaintiff F. Frederic Fouad (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action by filing a summons with notice in New York County Supreme Court against The Milton Hershey School and certain of its board members (the “MHS Defendants”), and its counsel, Elliott Greenleaf P.C., along with an Elliott Greenleaf partner, Jarad Handelman (the “EG Defendants,” and together with the MHS Defendants, the “Defendants”). EG Defs.’ Br. Ex. 1, at 2, ECF No. 38-1. The Summons with Notice alleged state law causes of action including, inter alia, abuse of process arising from Defendants’ use of subpoenas and pleadings in prior litigation in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (“M.D. Pa.”). See id. at 2; Fouad v. Milton Hershey Sch., No. 18 Civ. 5674 (PAC), 2019 WL 457567, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2019) (“S.D.N.Y Order Denying Remand”). Defendants promptly removed the case to this Court; Plaintiff moved to remand on the basis that he asserted only state claims; and Defendants cross moved to transfer the case to the M.D. Pa. S.D.N.Y. Order Denying Remand, 2019 WL 457567, at *1. On February 6, 2019, the Court found federal subject matter jurisdiction over the action and held that 28 U.S.C. §1404(a)’s factors favored transfer. Id. at *2, *3. Consequently, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to remand and granted Defendants’ motion to transfer. Id. at *3. Over the next year and a half, litigation in the M.D. Pa. generated “more than 65 orders [from magistrate and district judges] on motions, letters, and submissions.” Notice of Removal 19, ECF No. 6. The case was eventually reassigned to the Honorable Jennifer P. Wilson, who decided, sua sponte, to reexamine whether the action presents federal subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at
