The Honor able Da nny C. Reeves, United States District Judge for the E astern D istrict of * Kentucky , sitti ng by

desig nation. NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON

File Na me: 09a0757n.06 No. 09-5239 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT CEDARSTONE BA

NK, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. MUSI C CI TY RV, L L C and GARY ARMAGH, De fe nd ants -A

pp e lla nts
. ON APPEALFROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT COURT FOR THE MI DDL E DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE

/ B e f o r e : M A R T I

N , R O G E R S , C i r c u i t J u d g e s ; REE VE S, Dis tr ic t J udge. * BO YC E F

. M A R T IN , J R

. , C i r c u i tJ u d g e . A p p e l l an t s M u s i c C i t y RV , LLC an d

G ar y A r m agh appea l a district court’s r emand of appellee Cedarstone Ba

nk’s ac tion ag ainst them to Tennessee state cour t for lac k of subject matter jurisd iction and the district cour t’s g rant of a

ttorney fee s and costs to Ce darstone under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)

. Appellants subsequently waived their appea l of the district court’s de cision to remand f or lac k of subject matter jurisdiction and we do not have jurisdiction to hear the pendant a ppeal of the g rant of attorney

fee s beca use the district cour

t has not y et monetized the fee awa rd. We there fore DI SM ISS for lac k of appe llate jurisdiction.

I Music City

sells rec reational v eh i cl es at it s Nashville location. Ceda rstone provide s financ ing f

or those sale s. Armag h, a member of Mus ic C ity , serve d as Music City ’s g ener al manag erNo. 09-5239

Cedarstone Bank v . Music City RV, LLC and Gary Armagh Pag e 2 and sig ned as a g uara

ntor of Cedarstone ’s loans to Music City . This case arises out of that financing

arr ang e me nt. The fina ncing ag ree ment require d that, int e r a lia , the purc haser would maintain possession of the re cre ation vehicles in g ood working condition. Ce d ar s t one alleg es that, in four sa les, there

wer e fic tional purcha sers who did not buy vehicles, but, instead, Music City and Ar mag h conver

ted the vehicle s for their persona l use and lea sed the ve hicles. When these loans de faulted, Ceda rstone soug ht possession of the vehicles and rec overy of damag es cause d by the defa ult. On May

15, 2008, C e d ar s t o n e f

i l e d ana c t i o ni nt h e C h an c e r

y C o u rto f D a v i d s o nC o u n t y, T e nn e s s e e a g a i n s tM u s i c C i t y, a citizen of Ne w York a

nd ever y state i n which one of i ts members is a citiz en, and A rmag h, a citizen of Te nn e sse e , jo int ly

and se ve ra lly , s e e kin g c omp e ns a tor y and e qu ita

ble re lie f fo r br e a c h o f c on tr a c t, fr a ud , f ra ud ule nt ind uc e me nt, and c on ve rs ion of Ce da rs ton e ’s pr op e rt

y . T he state c ourt

se t a wr it of possession hea

ring to be hea

rd on June 6, 2008. On J une 5, 2008, Music City remove d the ac tion to the United States District Court of the Middle Dist ri ct o f T en n essee. On the same date, Music City moved to dismiss Armag h under F e d e r a l R u l e o f C i v i l P r o c e d

u r e 2 1 o nt h e b a s i s t h a t A r m a g h w a s a

“ d i s p e n s a

b l e n o n d i v e r s e p a rt y” t h a tc o u l d b e d i s m i s s e d f

r o m t h e a c t i o n o r t h a tA r

m a g h w a s f

r a u d u l e n t l y j o i n e d

t o d e f e a td i v e r s i t y. On J une 23, 2008 , Cedarstone Ba nk filed a motion to remand the action bac k to state court a nd a response to Music Cit y ’s motion to dis miss, along with a motion for attorney fee s. On J une 29, Mu sic City

fi le d it s me mor and

um a nd Ar ma g h’ s d e c lara

tio n in su pp or t of its mot ion

to d ism iss

. On Aug ust 28, 2008, the dist ri ct co u rt , considering Cedarstone ’s motion to remand and motion for attorney

fee s, found that Arma g h was not fr audulently joined beca

u s e C edar stone hadNo. 09-5239

Cedarstone Bank v . Music City RV, LLC and Gary Armagh Pag e 3

Re g ard le ss, the dis tr ic t court ’s de c isi on to g ra nt C e da rs ton e ’s mot ion

to r e mand

the c a se 1 to state court is not subject to re v i ew b y t h i s court. See 28 U. S.C. § 1 44 7( d) ; Powerex Corp. v. Re lia nt E ne rg ySe rv s. , I nc., 551 U.S. 224, 233 (2007) (noting that rema nds based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction are shielded fr om appellate r eview by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d)). clea r leg al claims ag ainst Armag h. Additionally , the district c ourt g rante d Cedarstone ’s motion for

a tto rn e y fe e s und e r 2 8 U .S. C. § 14 47 be c a us e Mu sic City ’s “ po sit ion to j us tif y re mov a l is fa c tua lly and leg ally

frivolous.” The court then rema nded the action to the state cour t. On J anuar

y 27, 2009, the district court de nied Music City and Ar m agh ’s motion to alter or amend the rema nd order

. Be fore Cedarstone enter ed a f ee pe tition, M usic City

and Ar mag h timely

appea led. II. At oral argument, Music City and Ar mag h abandone d their ar g ument as to the propr iety of the district court’s order remanding this case to state court. This leave s only the award of costs and 1 attorney fee s under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) to Ce darstone a s an issue on appe al. Her e, Music City and Arma gh ap p ea l ed the court’s dec ision to award attorney fee s and costs bef

ore the court ha d monetized the attorney

fee s and costs and e ntere d final judg ment. Had they wa ited to appea l the actua l awa

rd, we would have had j urisdiction over their appea l. W arthman v. Ge noa Townshi p Bd. of Trust ees , 5 4 9 F. 3 d

1 0 5 5 , 1 0 5 9 -6 0 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( ci t i n g Stallw orth v

. Greater Cleveland Re g’l Transit Auth. , 105 F.3d 252, 255 ( 6th Cir.1997) (holding that we have jurisdiction to review the

awa rd or denial of attorne y

fee s under § 1447( c)) . Howeve r, as the or der a war ding attorney

fee s on appea l was not final withi n the m eaning of 28 U.S .C. § 1291 beca use it left open the a

mount of the fe e s to be pa id, we fi nd

that w e do no t no w h a ve jur isd ic tio n to he ar t he ir a pp e a l.No. 09-5239

Cedarstone Bank v . Music City RV, LLC and Gary Armagh Pag e 4 Whil e cir cuits are split as to whether ther e is appe llate j u ri sdiction to review a n order

awa rding attorney

fee s when the a

mount of the awa

rd re mains to be deter

mined, s ee Pridgen v. Andresen , 113 F.3d 391, 393- 94 (2d Cir. 1997) (collecting case s and docume nting the c ircuit split), we have pre viously

held that an a

war d of attorne y

fee s that directs that a fee be paid but does not set the amount is not final and there fore not appea lable. Morgan v. Union M etal Mfg. , 757 F.2d 792, 794-96 (6th Cir. 1985). This is beca use “a deter mination o f att orney s’ fe es is not collatera l to a deter mination of liabilit y

for attorney s’ fe es.” Id. at 795. Howe ver, w e may hear an appeal of the g rant of attorney fee s befor e a net amount is se t w hen the awa rd of fee s is c onnecte d to a n appea l of the m erits of the ca se. Loudermill v . Cleveland Bd. Of Educ

. , 844 F.2d 304, 308 ( 6th Cir. 1988). He re , t h e a wa rd o f fe es i s n o t t i ed i n t o t h e me ri t s o f t h e c as e; i n d ee d , M u s i c C i t y an d Ar m agh abandone d all appea ls on the merits. As Music City and Armag h appea led an a war d of attorne y

fee s without a deter

mination of the amount of attorney fee s ever having been made—indee d, Cedarstone ha s st ill no t su

bmi tte d a pe tit ion fo r f e e s a nd c os ts— we do no t ha

ve jur isd ic tio n o ve r t

his a pp e a l. III . For the re asons discussed a

bove, we DI SM ISS for lac k of appe llate jurisdiction..