benefits from the Tulsa County Employees Retirement Fund and System. The Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County denied Latimer’s application, concluding that he did not meet the minimum eligibility requirements. Latimer appealed the Board’s decision to the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. See Okla. Stat. title 19, § 962. In 1998, the Oklahoma district court allowed Latimer to file a second amended petition wherein he asserted both a federal constitutional claim and a claim implicating the Employee Ret ew of the record, it is clear that Appellees’ motion seeking remand was based on a defect in the removal procedure other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the district court granted the motion on that basis. See Flores v. Long, 110 F.3d 730, 732 (10th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) specifically permits a
holding this court may affirm on any grounds supported by the record even if different from the district courts grounds holding that the decision of the appellate court establishes the law of the case and it must be followed by the trial court on remand holding that this court must determine by independent review the actual grounds upon which the remand was based holding that to establish grounds for reversal an appellant must challenge all grounds on which the trial court ruled against it holding that to preserve an issue for appellate review the specific legal argument or ground upon which it is based must be presented to the trial court