Court Opinion

ID: 26265
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 08:50:28+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:33.582144
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                      _______________________

                          No. 01-30262
                     Civil Docket #99-CV-824
                     _______________________

MINOS D. MILLER, JR., as Trustee on behalf of
Minos D. Miller, Sr. Trust; RUTH LOYD MILLER, as Trustee on behalf
of Minos D. Miller, Sr. Trust; RICHARD MILLER, as Trustee on behalf
of Miller Partnership,

                                              Plaintiffs-Appellants,

                              versus

FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION, CO.,

                                                Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Western District of Louisiana
_________________________________________________________________
                         December 13, 2001

Before JONES, EMILIO M. GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.*

PER CURIAM:

          The court has carefully considered this appeal in light

of the briefs and pertinent portions of the record.   Having done so

we find no reversible error of law or fact.

     *
      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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
            In    particular,   the   district      court   did   not    err   in

concluding that no “other paper” was filed for purposes of starting

the clock running on removal from state court until that court

deemed certain admissions against appellants. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).

Further, under the circumstances of this case, the statement

contained in one of the parties’ contracts that disputes would be

resolved in “Louisiana’s courts” did not waive appellee’s right to

remove the dispute to federal court.          Finally, we find no error in

the   district    court’s   reasoning      construing   the   1989      easement

agreement   and    the   1994   release.      The    intent   and    effect    of

contractual provisions in both situations are clear.

            The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                      2