The Client Protection Fund of v. Meldon Hollis, Jr., No. 10-1686 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1686 THE CLIENT PROTECTION FUND OF THE BAR OF MARYLAND, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MELDON S. HOLLIS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:10-cv-00680-WDQ) Submitted: January 31, 2011 Decided: February 25, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Meldon S. Hollis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Leo Wesley Ottey, Jr., CHASE & CHASE, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Meldon Hollis, Jr., appeals from the district court s order remanding the underlying action to Maryland state court and imposing attorney s fees against him. To the extent that Hollis appeals the order remanding to state court, the order is See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2006). not appealable. Accordingly, we dismiss, in part, for lack of jurisdiction. We review for abuse of discretion the district court s order granting attorney s fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (2006). In re Lowe, 102 F.3d 731, 733 n.2 (4th Cir. 1996). Supreme Court has held that, absent unusual The circumstances, courts may award attorney s fees under § 1447(c) only where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal. Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005). As noted by the district court, this was Hollis second baseless attempt to remove the proceedings from state court. well within Accordingly, we find that the award of $2275 was the district court s discretion and, therefore, affirm in part. In light of this disposition, we deny the Appellee s motion to motion for injunctive relief and to vacate the writ of garnishment. We dispense dismiss with contentions the oral are appeal argument adequately as well as because presented 2 Hollis the in facts the and legal materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
