Opinion ID: 2972387
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Abuse-of-discretion standard

Text: This court’s rule that “the award of attorney fees for trial work is within the sound discretion of the district court,” Wrenn v. Gould, 808 F.2d 493, 504 (6th Cir. 1987), also applies to motions for attorney fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). See Ahearn v. Charter Township of Bloomfield, No. 971187, 1998 WL 384558, at  (6th Cir. June 18, 1998) (unpublished) (“We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision on whether to award attorney fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).”); Morris v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 985 F.2d 238, 240 (6th Cir. 1993) (“The district court’s discretion under § 1447(c) was significantly expanded when the section was amended in 1988.”). An abuse of discretion occurs where “[a] district court . . . relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact, or when it improperly applies the law or uses an erroneous legal standard.” Christian Schmidt Brewing Co. v. G. Heileman Brewing Co., 753 F.2d 1354, 1356 (6th Cir. 1985) (citation omitted). “[A] reviewing court cannot overturn a district court solely because it would have made a different decision under the circumstances.” CSX Transp., Inc. v. Tenn. State Bd. of Equalization, 964 F.2d 548, 556 (6th Cir. 1992).