UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

MARTI LUNDAHL, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

AMERICAN BANKERS INSURANCE 

COMPANY OF FLORIDA, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

------------------------------ 

HOLLI LUNDAHL, 

 Movant to Intervene. 

Nos. 14-8014 & 14-8022 

(D.C. No. 2:12-CV-00280-SWS) 

(D. Wyo.)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before MORITZ, PORFILIO, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

 

 

 

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

April 21, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 14-8022 Document: 01019418665 Date Filed: 04/21/2015 Page: 1 
- 2 - 

 Plaintiff Marti Lundahl, appearing pro se, appeals the district court orders 

dismissing her complaint against American Bankers Insurance Company (ABIC), 

denying her request for sanctions against ABIC, awarding sanctions against Lundahl, 

and denying Lundahl’s request to extend the time to appeal. Exercising jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the imposition of sanctions, deny Lundahl’s 

request for an extension of time to appeal; dismiss as untimely Lundahl’s appeal from 

the final judgment; and deny her request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). We also 

deny the request of Lundahl’s sister, Holli Lundahl, to intervene.1

 Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we briefly summarize only 

those most salient. Lundahl filed an action in Wyoming state court to collect from 

ABIC a Utah judgment against an insured of ABIC. ABIC removed the action to 

federal court where the district court denied Lundahl’s motion to remand and granted 

ABIC’s motion to dismiss. The court also ordered Lundahl to show cause why she 

should not be subject to sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Thereafter, Lundahl 

 filed multiple motions asserting various arguments. Ultimately, the district court 

scheduled a November 22, 2013, hearing to resolve all outstanding issues and 

directed the parties to appear in person. Lundahl failed to appear. 

 

1

 Although Plaintiff and her sister Holli filed a joint appeal, this court imposed 

filing restrictions on Holli in Johnson v. Stock, No. 03-4219, 2005 WL 1349963, at 

*3-4 (10th Cir. June 8, 2005). Because Holli failed to submit the requisite petition in 

order to proceed, we dismissed Holli as an appellant. 

Appellate Case: 14-8022 Document: 01019418665 Date Filed: 04/21/2015 Page: 2 
- 3 - 

On November 27, 2013, the district court denied Lundahl’s motion for 

sanctions against ABIC and entered final judgment pursuant to its earlier dismissal 

order. The court denied Lundahl’s motion to reconsider on December 19, 2013. On 

February 5, 2014, the district court imposed Rule 11 sanctions on Lundahl for her 

frivolous complaint, frivolous filings, and failure to appear at the November hearing. 

On February 27, 2014, Lundahl filed a notice of appeal in No. 14-8014, challenging 

several post-judgment orders, including the court’s February 5, 2014, sanctions 

order.2

 On March 3, 2014, the district court denied Lundahl’s motion to extend time 

to file an appeal, and on March 20, 2014, Lundahl appealed that order in 

No. 14-8022. The two appeals have been consolidated. 

Lundahl first challenges the district court’s refusal to remand this action to 

state court. She argues the district court should have remanded for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction because ABIC attached her original complaint to its notice of 

removal instead of her amended complaint, which purported to assign her cause of 

action to her sister Holli. But ABIC cured any defect in its notice of removal when 

ten days later it supplemented its notice of removal by submitting to the district court 

all of the state court filings and pleadings not previously included in its notice of 

 

2

 Lundahl appeals the following post-judgment orders in No. 14-8014: (1) the 

February 4, 2013 order denying Holli’s motion to intervene and Lundahl’s motion to 

supplement her Rule 59 motion; (2) the February 5, 2013 order imposing sanctions; 

and (3) the February 14, 2013 order striking Lundahl’s and Holli’s Rule 59 motion to 

reconsider the sanction order and also striking related declarations and filings as 

violative of the court’s February 5 order prohibiting any further filings except a 

notice of appeal. 

Appellate Case: 14-8022 Document: 01019418665 Date Filed: 04/21/2015 Page: 3 
- 4 - 

removal, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). Countryman v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 

639 F.3d 1270, 1272-73 (10th Cir. 2011) (removing party’s failure to attach required 

state court papers to notice of removal was curable procedural defect, not a 

jurisdictional defect). Thus, ABIC timely and effectively removed Lundahl’s action 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 by alleging diversity of citizenship and an amount in 

controversy exceeding $75,000. See Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. 

Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 553 (2014) (holding removal notice need only contain short 

and plain statement of grounds for court’s jurisdiction). 

Lundahl also argues the district court lacked diversity jurisdiction because she 

filed a “direct action” against ABIC thereby imputing ABIC’s citizenship to its 

insured and defeating diversity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). But as the district court 

correctly found, that statute refers to actions in which the party injured by the 

insured’s negligence proceeds against the insurer alone. See, e.g., Velez v. Crown Life 

Ins. Co., 599 F.2d 471, 473 (1st Cir. 1979) (discussing legislative history and 

meaning of “direct action” under § 1332 action). Here, in contrast, Lundahl first 

proceeded against ABIC’s insured alone, obtained a judgment, and then sought to 

collect her judgment from ABIC. See, e.g., Monroe v. Roedder, 583 F. Supp. 2d 

1031, 1035 (E.D. Mo. 2008) (holding garnishment proceedings are not direct actions 

within meaning of § 1332(c)(1)). In short, we conclude the district court properly 

rejected Lundahl’s suggestion that § 1332 defeated subject matter jurisdiction over 

the removal action. 

Appellate Case: 14-8022 Document: 01019418665 Date Filed: 04/21/2015 Page: 4 
- 5 - 

Before turning to the merits of Lundahl’s arguments, we must first consider 

whether we have jurisdiction to do so. On December 19, 2013, the district court 

denied Lundahl’s Rule 59 motion in which she sought reconsideration of the court’s 

dismissal order and its denial of her sanction request. But Lundahl failed to file a 

notice of appeal from the December 19 decision until February 27, 2014, more than 

one month after the 30-day time period to file a notice of appeal expired on 

January 21, 2014. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(a) and (a)(4)(iv). Lundahl’s untimely 

filing results in our lack of jurisdiction to review the district court dismissal order, its 

denial of Lundahl’s request for sanctions against ABIC, and its post-judgment orders 

denying Lundahl’s requests to reconsider those orders. See Bowles v. Russell, 

551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007) (“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is 

a jurisdictional requirement.”). 

Nevertheless, Lundahl argues the district court abused its discretion in denying 

her request to extend the time to file her notice of appeal. A district court may extend 

the time to file a notice of appeal if the party so moves before the time to appeal 

expires and shows excusable neglect or good cause. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A). A 

district court’s refusal to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal is itself an 

appealable decision which we review for abuse of discretion. Bishop v. Corsentino, 

371 F.3d 1203, 1206 (10th Cir. 2004). Lundahl offers no specific reason for her delay 

in seeking to extend her appeal time, instead suggesting the district court’s order was 

“confusing. But we agree with the district court that “[a]ny confusion existing in the 

Appellate Case: 14-8022 Document: 01019418665 Date Filed: 04/21/2015 Page: 5 
- 6 - 

record is of Lundahl’s own making, largely by her frivolous and often voluminous 

filings and her steadfast refusal to accept and/or recognize the adverse rulings of the 

Court.” R. Vol. 1, at 1131. We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s 

denial of Lundahl’s motion to extend time to appeal. 

Lundahl also challenges the district court’s imposition of sanctions related to 

Lundahl’s failure to attend the November 22 hearing. Specifically, the court ordered 

Lundahl to reimburse ABIC for costs and reasonable attorney’s fees in the amount of 

$3,078.40. We review the district court’s imposition of Rule 11 sanctions for abuse 

of discretion. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405 (1990). 

Here, the district court gave Lundahl an opportunity to show cause why 

sanctions should not be imposed and conducted two hearings regarding the sanctions 

issues (one of which Lundahl failed to attend). In ordering sanctions, the district 

court found Lundahl filed numerous frivolous pleadings and motions containing 

factual and legal misrepresentations, conducted the litigation in bad faith in an 

attempt to harass ABIC and to harass and perpetrate fraud on the court, and failed to 

show good cause for her failure to attend the November 22 hearing. 

Lundahl presents no meritorious arguments demonstrating the district court 

abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees and costs as a Rule 11 sanction. And 

having reviewed the record, we find it replete with evidentiary support for the district 

court’s findings. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court’s February 5, 

2014 order, we affirm the sanctions. 

Appellate Case: 14-8022 Document: 01019418665 Date Filed: 04/21/2015 Page: 6 
- 7 - 

 To summarize, we affirm the district court’s February 5, 2014 order imposing 

Rule 11 sanctions against Lundahl and its March 3, 2014, order denying Lundahl’s 

motion to extend time to file an appeal. We dismiss all of Lundahl’s remaining 

appellate challenges for lack of jurisdiction based on her untimely notice of appeal. 

Finally, we deny Lundahl’s request to proceed IFP. 

 Entered for the Court 

 Nancy L. Moritz 

 Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 14-8022 Document: 01019418665 Date Filed: 04/21/2015 Page: 7