Case Name: LEE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF THE CAROLINAS, INCORPORATED; English Construction Company; Seaboard Surety Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SLOAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INCORPORATED; Colas, Incorporated; Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-11
Citations: 104 F. App'x 323
Docket Number: No. 03-2241
Parties: LEE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF THE CAROLINAS, INCORPORATED; English Construction Company; Seaboard Surety Company, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. SLOAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INCORPORATED; Colas, Incorporated; Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 104
Pages: 323–324

Head Matter:
LEE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF THE CAROLINAS, INCORPORATED; English Construction Company; Seaboard Surety Company, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. SLOAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INCORPORATED; Colas, Incorporated; Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 03-2241.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 21, 2004.
Decided Aug. 11, 2004.
Robert L. Widener, Benjamin E. Nicholson, V, McNair Law Firm, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellants. L. Frank- Tin Elmore, Elmore & Wall, P.A, Green-ville, South Carolina; Keith E. Coltrain, Elmore & Wall, P.A., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Lee Construction Company of the Car-olinas, Inc., English Construction Company, and Seaboard Surety Company (the Plaintiffs) filed a complaint in South Carolina state court against Sloan Construction Company, Inc., Colas, Inc., and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (the Defendants), arising out of a dispute over construction contracts. The Defendants removed the action to federal district court, which issued a show cause order directing the Defendants to show cause why the case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because, inter alia, one of the Defendants was a resident of South Carolina. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) (2000). The district court remanded the case to state court. The Plaintiffs appeal the denial of their request for attorneys' fees.
Section 1447(c) provides 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 the removal." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (2000). The district court's decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion. In re Lowe, 102 F.3d 731, 733 n. 2 (4th Cir.1996).
Although parties are presumptively entitled to recover attorneys' fees under § 1447(c), see Garbie v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 211 F.3d 407, 410 (7th Cir.2000), "the entitlement is not automatic — the presumption is not irrebuttable." Sirotzky v. New York Stock Exch., 347 F.3d 985, 986 (7th Cir.2003). We find that, based on the facts of this case, the district court acted well within its discretion in denying the Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED