James Fassino, et al v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 12-20143 (5th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-20143 Document: 00512129975 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/30/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED January 30, 2013 No. 12-20143 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk JAMES C. FASSINO; MARTHA N. FASSINO, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. STATE FARM LLOYDS, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:11-CV-4533 Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* On July 11, 2012, a panel of this court dismissed this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On August 3, 2012, the panel granted appellant s motion for reconsideration. We agree with the panel, for the reasons articulated in its opinion, that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider whether remand was appropriate in this case. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 12-20143 Document: 00512129975 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/30/2013 No. 12-20143 Nevertheless, this court does have jurisdiction to review the district court s attorneys fee award pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).1 See Garcia v. Amfels, Inc., 254 F.3d 585, 587 (5th Cir. 2001) ( This Court has appellate jurisdiction to review the imposition of costs and fees even though 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) provides that a remand order is not reviewable by appeal or otherwise. ); Miranti v. Lee, 3 F.3d 925, 927-28 (5th Cir. 1993) ( Guided by . . . authorities which favor appellate review of a sanctions order (even if the remand order itself is not reviewable), we hold that § 1447(d) does not prohibit review by this court of the order of costs and fees. ). We review a district court s decision to award attorneys fees for an abuse of discretion. Garcia, 354 F.3d at 587. [T]he question we consider in applying [the fees provision of] § 1447(c) is whether the defendant had objectively reasonable grounds to believe the removal was legally proper. Valdes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 199 F.3d 290, 293 (5th Cir. 2000). For essentially the reasons articulated in the district court s February 17, 2012 order, we hold that appellant did not have objectively reasonable grounds for removal, and, therefore, that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys fees to appellee. We AFFIRM the district court s award of attorney s fees and we DISMISS for lack of jurisdiction on the issue of whether remand was appropriate. 1 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) states, in pertinent part, that [a]n order remanding the case may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of removal. 2
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.
