Liberty Mutual Ins v. Adams, et al, No. 05-20816 (5th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 15, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-20816 Summary Calendar LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DONNA ADAMS, Defendant-Appellant, ROBERT HEDRICK, Intervenor DefendantAppellant. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:05-CV-1974 -------------------Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appellee s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction appeal of district court s remand order and ostensible appeals of any other orders, other than that granting Appellee s motion for sanctions and statutory fees, is GRANTED. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); see also Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 150-53 (1908) (plaintiff, not defendant, controls * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 05-20816 -2removability of case); Sitton v. United States, 413 F.2d 1386, 1389 (5th Cir. 1969) (federal courts do not act as appellate arm of state courts). The district court s sanctions order against Appellants, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, which granted nonmonetary relief and, based on fees incurred by Appellee during its two prior successful remands, $10,750, was not an abuse of discretion and is AFFIRMED. See Skidmore Energy, Inc. v. KPMG, 455 F.3d 564, 566 (5th Cir. 2006). To the extent Appellants appeal the court s award of $7,031.25 in statutory fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), that award was also not an abuse of discretion and is AFFIRMED. See Hornbuckle v. State Farm Lloyds, 385 F.3d 538, 541 (5th Cir. 2004). Appellee s motion for costs on appeal and motion, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38, for damages in the amount of fees incurred in defending this appeal are GRANTED and the matter REMANDED to the district court for determination of such (single) costs and fees incurred in defending this appeal. See Lyons v. Sheetz, 834 F.2d 493, 495-96 (5th Cir. 1987); Clark v. Green, 814 F.2d 221, 223 (5th Cir. 1987) (explaining that even pro se litigants lack unrestrained license to pursue totally frivolous appeals ). Appellants motion for $20,000 in sanctions against Appellee, motion to turn the appeal over to the FBI for investigation of allegations of conspiracy between employees of No. 05-20816 -3this Court and Appellee, and motion to continue all actions pending the outcome of that investigation are DENIED. Finally, we warn Appellants that additional frivolous pleadings, suits, or appeals filed by them in this matter will invite further sanctions. proceed in state court. It is time for the underlying case to
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.
