Court Opinion

ID: 25584
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 08:40:24+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:55:16.444449
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                          For the Fifth Circuit

                      ___________________________

                              No. 00-31289
                      ___________________________

                              CHERYL SADLER,

                                                                  Plaintiff,

                                   VERSUS

                      WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION; ET AL,

                                                                Defendants,

          WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION; SEARS ROEBUCK AND COMPANY,
                       Defendants-Intervenor Defendants-Appellants,

                                   VERSUS

          AMERICAN NATIONAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY,

                              Defendant-Intervenor Plaintiff-Appellee.

______________________________________________________________________________

   Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
                District of Louisiana, Baton Rouge
                          No. 98-CV-456-B
         ________________________________________________
                         November 6, 2001

Before KING, Chief Judge, DAVIS, Circuit Judge, and VANCE,1

District Judge.

PER CURIAM:2

      1
      District Judge of the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting
by designation.
      2
      Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
     Whirlpool Corporation, et al, challenge the district court’s

order granting American National Property and Casualty Company’s

motion to remand its action back to the Louisiana 19th Judicial

District Court.   The district court expressly based its August

24, 2000 order upon 28 U.S.C. 1447(c).   Section 1447(d) forbids

this Court from reviewing orders remanding actions under

subsection (c).   We therefore dismiss this appeal.

DISMISSED.

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.