Filed: Jun. 13, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 13-15475 Date Filed: 06/13/2014 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 13-15475 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-00243-SCJ FIRST CITIZENS BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MARIAN HUNTER, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia _ (June 13, 2014) Before WILSON, ANDERSON, and COX, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Marian Hunter (the Defendant) ap
Summary: Case: 13-15475 Date Filed: 06/13/2014 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 13-15475 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-00243-SCJ FIRST CITIZENS BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MARIAN HUNTER, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia _ (June 13, 2014) Before WILSON, ANDERSON, and COX, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Marian Hunter (the Defendant) app..
More
Case: 13-15475 Date Filed: 06/13/2014 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
__________________________
No. 13-15475
Non-Argument Calendar
__________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-00243-SCJ
FIRST CITIZENS BANK & TRUST COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARIAN HUNTER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(June 13, 2014)
Before WILSON, ANDERSON, and COX, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Marian Hunter (the Defendant) appeals, presenting two issues. She
contends: (1) that the district court erred in remanding this diversity case to the
Case: 13-15475 Date Filed: 06/13/2014 Page: 2 of 2
DeKalb County Superior Court based upon defects in the removal procedure; and
(2) that the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees
($2,240.00) to First Citizens Bank & Trust Company (the Plaintiff).
As to the first issue, a three-judge panel of this court has entered an order
dismissing this appeal of the remand order because this court lacks jurisdiction to
review the order. See 28 U.S.C. §1447(d) (“An order remanding a case to the State
Court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal.”). While this panel
has the right to alter, amend or vacate this order under 11th Cir. R. 27-1(g), we
decline to do so.
As to the second issue, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in the fee award pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) because the court did
not err in the conclusion that the removal was objectively unreasonable.
The appeal of the remand order stands DISMISSED for lack of our
jurisdiction to review it. The award of attorneys’ fees is AFFIRMED.
2