RSA-TUMON, LLC V. SHERIF PHILIPS, No. 21-16185 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 18 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RSA-TUMON, LLC, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 21-16185 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:20-cv-00025 v. MEMORANDUM* SHERIF A. PHILIPS, Defendant-Appellant, and PITT COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Guam Frances Tydingco-Gatewood, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 12, 2022** Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Sherif A. Philips appeals pro se from the district court’s orders remanding to * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). state court the interpleader action brought against Philips, denying reconsideration, and awarding attorney’s fees to RSA-Tumon, LLC. We dismiss in part and affirm in part. As we held previously, we lack jurisdiction to review the portion of the district court’s March 30, 2021 order granting the motion to remand this action to the Superior Court of Guam. See RSA-Tumon, LLC v. Philips, et al., No. 21-15578 (9th Cir. April 15, 2021) (order); see also Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir. 1991) (under the law of the case doctrine, one panel of an appellate court will not reconsider questions that another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same case). We also lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s order denying Philips’s motion for reconsideration of the order remanding the action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); Branson v. City of Los Angeles, 912 F.2d 334, 336 (9th Cir. 1990) (denial of reconsideration of non-appealable order is itself not appealable); cf. Seedman v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988) (prohibition on the review of remand orders extends to the district court’s own ability to entertain a motion for reconsideration). Accordingly, this portion of the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction to review the district court’s orders granting RSATumon, LLC’s motion for fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). See Gardner v. UICI, 508 F.3d 559, 560-61 (9th Cir. 2007). The district court did not abuse its 2 21-16185 discretion by awarding attorney’s fees and costs under § 1447(c) in the amount of $4,770.59 because Philips lacked an objectively reasonable basis for removal and the record supports the district court’s calculation under the lodestar method. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Lussier v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 518 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 2008) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that “‘[a]bsent unusual circumstances, courts may award attorney’s fees under § 1447(c) only where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal’” (quoting Martin v. Franklin Cap. Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005)); see also Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 978-79 (9th Cir. 2008) (discussing proper application of the lodestar method and the district court’s “great deal of discretion” to determine the reasonableness of the fee (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). We reject as unsupported by the record Philips’s contention that the district court was not impartial. We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). DISMISSED in part and AFFIRMED in part. 3 21-16185

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.