Case ID: f-appx_509/html/0366-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James C. FASSINO; Martha N. Fassino, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. STATE FARM LLOYDS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-20143
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Jan. 30, 2013.
    George B. Murr, Murr Yanochik, P.L.L.C., Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs-Ap-pellees.
    Joseph F. Nistico, Jr., Nistico, Crouch & Kessler, P.C., Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

On July 11, 2012, a panel of this court dismissed this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On August 3, 2012, the panel granted appellant’s motion for reconsideration. We agree with the panel, for the reasons articulated in its opinion, that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider whether remand was appropriate in this case.

Nevertheless, this court does have jurisdiction to review the district court’s attorneys’ fee award pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). See Garcia v. Amfels, Inc., 254 F.3d 585, 587 (5th Cir.2001) (“This Court has appellate jurisdiction to review the imposition of costs and fees even though 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) provides that a remand order is not reviewable by appeal or otherwise.”); Miranti v. Lee, 3 F.3d 925, 927-28 (5th Cir.1993) (“Guided by ... authorities which favor appellate review of a sanctions order (even if the remand order itself is not reviewable), we hold that § 1447(d) does not prohibit review by this court of the order of costs and fees.”).

We review a district court’s decision to award attorneys’ fees for an abuse of discretion. Garcia, 254 F.3d at 587. “[T]he question we consider in applying [the fees provision of] § 1447(c) is whether the defendant had objectively reasonable grounds to believe the removal was legally proper.” Valdes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 199 F.3d 290, 293 (5th Cir.2000).

For essentially the reasons articulated in the district court’s February 17, 2012 order, we hold that appellant did not have objectively reasonable grounds for removal, and, therefore, that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees to appellee.

We AFFIRM the district court’s award of attorney’s fees and we DISMISS for lack of jurisdiction on the issue of whether remand was appropriate. 
      
       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.
     
      
      . 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) states, in pertinent part, that ‘‘[a]n order remanding the case may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of removal.”