Workers Union v. McKague, 216 F.2d 153, 155 (3d Cir.1954)—did not involve circumstances in which a district court's order of dismissal was followed immediately by a remand order. 7 . In Aliota v. Graham, 984 F.2d 1350 (3d Cir.1993), we noted that an order is effectively unre-viewable when the order involves "an asserted right the legal and practical value of which would be destroyed if it were not vindicated before trial.” Id. at 1353, quoting United States v. MacDonald, 435 U.S. 850, 860, 98 S.Ct. 1547, 1552, 56 L.Ed.2d 18 (1978). There we held that a district court’s resubstitution order, which had the effect of rejecting defendant federal employees' claim of immunity from suit for activities performed within the scope of their federal employ tres, Inc., 741 F.2d 273 (9th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); Clorox Co. v. United States Dist. Ct. for
holding that under 28 usc  1447c and d federal jurisdiction terminates once a section 1447c remand order has been mailed to the state court holding that a permissive forum selection clause containing a waiver of any claims of forum non conveniens amounts to a mandatory forum selection clause at least where the plaintiff chose the designated forum holding review of remand order based on forum selection clause not barred by  1447d holding that remand order based on forum selection clause is reviewable on appeal holding remand based on forum selection clause not within  1447c