California Casualty Indemnity v. Josephat Mua, No. 16-1584 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1584 CALIFORNIA CASUALTY INDEMNITY EXCHANGE, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOSEPHAT MUA; FRANCOISE VANDENPLAS, Defendants - Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:15-cv-00060-PJM) Submitted: November 22, 2016 Before DIAZ and Circuit Judge. THACKER, Circuit Decided: Judges, December 1, 2016 and DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Josephat Mua, Francoise Vandenplas, Appellants Pro Se. V. McCarron, James Olin Spiker, IV, SEMMES, BOWEN & Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Thomas SEMMES, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Appellants Josephat Mua and Francoise Vandenplas seek to appeal the district unjust enrichment court’s action orders to state remanding court motions for reconsideration and to reopen. the and underlying denying their California Casualty Indemnity Exchange (California Casualty) has moved to dismiss the appeal ordered as to frivolous, pay the and also damages, associated with this appeal. asks costs, that and Appellants attorney’s be fees Appellants have filed motions to exceed the length limitations for their appellate filings and for leave to file a corrected response to California Casualty’s motion to dismiss, and have also filed applications to proceed in forma pauperis. Subject to exceptions not applicable here, “[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2012); see E.D. ex rel. Darcy v. Pfizer, Inc., 722 F.3d 574, 579-83 (4th Cir. 2013). Because the district court’s orders do not fall within the exceptions provided by § 1447, the orders are not appealable. Accordingly, jurisdiction. we dismiss the appeal for lack of We grant Appellants’ motions to exceed the length limitations for their appellate filings and to file a corrected response, and deny Appellants’ in forma pauperis applications. 2 We deny California Casualty’s motion to dismiss and for sanctions. * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED * We note that this is Appellants’ second unsuccessful appeal of the same matter, and we therefore warn Appellants that another appeal may subject them to sanctions. 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.
