Court Opinion

ID: 9401788
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-14 00:00:31.197227+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:55.246870
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20247         Document: 00516785814             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/13/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit

                                      ____________                                     FILED
                                                                                   June 13, 2023
                                       No. 22-20247                               Lyle W. Cayce
                                      ____________                                     Clerk

   James Flitsch; Carolyn S. Clark,

                                                                     Plaintiffs—Appellees,

                                             versus

   Kristin Guardino, J.D.; Leonard Guardino,

                                              Defendants—Appellants.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:21-CV-3628
                      ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Shortly before being disbarred, Kristin Guardino drafted an
   irrevocable living trust for Carolyn Clark that named James Flitsch, Clark’s
   grandson, as one of the trustees. But Kristin subsequently attempted to name
   herself as a trustee and unilaterally remove Flitsch and replace him with her
   husband, Leonard Guardino. Clark and Flitsch then sued the Guardinos in
   Texas state court.

         _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20247        Document: 00516785814             Page: 2      Date Filed: 06/13/2023

                                        No. 22-20247

           After the Texas court ruled against the Guardinos on several matters,
   they tried to remove the case to federal district court for a third time. The
   federal court found that it lacked jurisdiction, remanded the case, and
   assessed costs and attorney’s fees against the Guardinos for removing
   without a reasonable basis. The Guardinos now appeal the remand and the
   assessment. We lack jurisdiction to review either ruling and therefore dismiss
   the appeal.
                                              I.
           Although raised by neither party, we must ensure we have appellate
   jurisdiction. Castaneda v. Falcon, 166 F.3d 799, 801 (5th Cir. 1999). A district
   court’s decision to remand for lack of jurisdiction is generally unreviewable
   on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). 1 One exception allows review of removals
   under 28 U.S.C. § 1443, which governs removal of certain cases involving
   “any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States.”
   See 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1); Decatur Hosp. Auth. v. Aetna Health, Inc., 854 F.3d
   292, 295 (5th Cir. 2017). Both sides take the position that this exception
   applies here merely because the Guardinos cited § 1443 in their notice of
   removal. 2
           That is not enough, however. To invoke § 1443(1), the defendant
   must show, inter alia, that “the right allegedly denied [him] arises under a
   federal law providing for specific rights stated in terms of racial equality.”

           _____________________
           1
             That subsection provides: “An order remanding a case to the State court from
   which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise, except that an order
   remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed pursuant to section 1442 or
   1443 of this title shall be reviewable by appeal or otherwise.”
           2
             The notice states that the Guardinos removed under “28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1335,
   1337(a), 1343(a), 1367, 1441, and 1443; 18 U.S.C. §1964© [sic]; and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and
   1985.”

                                              2
Case: 22-20247         Document: 00516785814               Page: 3      Date Filed: 06/13/2023

                                          No. 22-20247

   Texas v. Gulf Water Benefaction Co., 679 F.2d 85, 86 (5th Cir. 1982) (emphasis
   added); Johnson v. Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213, 219 (1975). Although the burden
   rests on them, the Guardinos have not even tried to make that showing. See
   Charter Sch. of Pine Grove, Inc. v. St. Helena Par. Sch. Bd., 417 F.3d 444, 448
   (5th Cir. 2005) (“The defendant bears the burden of establishing its right to
   removal under § 1443.”). Indeed, before the district court, they disclaimed
   any connection between their race and the alleged violations of their rights.
   They even argued, contrary to longstanding precedent, that “§ 1443 has no
   racial component at all” and contended that their failure to rely on federal
   rights stated in terms of racial equality was “immaterial.”
           We have repeatedly held that when a defendant’s attempted removal
   lacks even the barest connection with the requirements of § 1443, merely
   invoking that provision does not supply jurisdiction to review a remand order.
   Easley v. Easley, 62 F.3d 392, 1995 WL 449817 (5th Cir. June 28, 1995) (per
   curiam) (unpublished) (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction when
   removing defendant “fail[ed] to mention racial equality at all”); 3
   Unauthorized Prac. of L. Comm. v. Ratcliff, 229 F. App’x 348, 349 (5th Cir.
   2007) (per curiam); ACL Co., LLC v. Espinoza, 32 F. App’x 128, 128 (5th
   Cir. 2002) (per curiam); see also Agyin v. Razmzan, 986 F.3d 168, 174 (2d Cir.
   2021) (holding that a “bare or frivolous invocation” of 28 U.S.C. § 1442—
           _____________________
           3
             While Easley was unpublished, it is precedential because it issued before January
   1, 1996. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.3. The Guardinos argue that a recent Supreme Court case
   endorses the view that merely citing § 1443 suffices for appellate jurisdiction. See BP P.L.C.
   v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., 141 S. Ct. 1532, 1538 (2021). Not so. That case addressed
   the scope of appellate review of a case removed under §§ 1442 or 1443, not what was
   needed to properly invoke either section in the first place. See id. at 1536 (“only question”
   presented was whether a court of appeals may “review any issue in a district court order”
   remanding a case whose removal was premised on §§ 1442 or 1443). Our rule of orderliness
   compels us to follow existing circuit precedent unless the Supreme Court “unequivocally”
   overrules it. United States v. Petras, 879 F.3d 155, 164 (5th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted).
   Accordingly, Easley controls.

                                                 3
Case: 22-20247      Document: 00516785814           Page: 4    Date Filed: 06/13/2023

                                     No. 22-20247

   an appealable counterpart to § 1443—does not create appellate jurisdiction).
   Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s remand order.
                                         II.
          The Guardinos also appeal the district court’s decision to assess costs
   and attorney’s fees against them under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Ordinarily, we
   would be able to review such an award despite our lack of jurisdiction over
   the underlying remand order. Hornbuckle v. State Farm Lloyds, 385 F.3d 538,
   541 (5th Cir. 2004). However, the district court has not yet reduced its award
   to a sum certain, so we lack jurisdiction to review its decision. S. Travel Club,
   Inc. v. Carnival Air Lines, Inc., 986 F.2d 125, 131 (5th Cir. 1993) (“[A]n order
   awarding attorney’s fees or costs is not reviewable on appeal until the award
   is reduced to a sum certain.”); Webb v. Morella, 522 F. App’x 238, 242 (5th
   Cir. 2013).
                                                       APPEAL DISMISSED.

                                          4