Kathleen Beusterien v. Icon Clinical Research, Inc., No. 12-2216 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2216 KATHLEEN BEUSTERIEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ICON CLINICAL RESEARCH, INC.; OXFORD OUTCOMES, INC.; OXFORD OUTCOMES 2007 LIMITED; PAUL QUARTERMAN; ANDREW LLOYD, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:12cv-02720-RWT) Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: April 5, 2013 Before DAVIS, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrew J. Morris, MORVILLO LLP, Washington, D.C.; Andrew A. Nicely, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Andrew K. Fletcher, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Kathleen A. Mullen, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kathleen Beusterien appeals the district court s order remanding the underlying civil action to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, and denying her request for a fee award to compensate her for the attorney s fees and costs she incurred in contesting Defendants removal of her civil action to federal court. Beusterien does not challenge the remand order, limiting this appeal only to the denial of her request for a fee award. We court s We affirm. review order denying § 1447(c) (2006). Cir. 1996). for an abuse attorney s of discretion fees pursuant the to district 28 U.S.C. See In re Lowe, 102 F.3d 731, 733 n.2 (4th There is no automatic entitlement to an award of attorney s fees. Valdes v. Wal Mart Stores, Inc., 199 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding that the mere determination that removal was improper does not require a district court to award attorney s fees). As the Supreme Court has instructed, § 1447(c) authorizes the district court to award attorney s fees when such Corp., 546 an award U.S. 132, is just[,] 138 (2005), Martin but committed to the court s sound discretion. v. Franklin whether to do Capital so is Id. at 139-41. Based on our review of the facts of this case and the relevant law, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Beusterien s request for a fee award. 2 Accordingly, we affirm the district court s order. See Beusterien v. Icon Clinical Research, Inc., No. 8:12-cv-02720RWT (D. Md. filed Oct. 1, 2012; entered Oct. 2, 2012). dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 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.