Imposition of Fee-Shifting Upon Remand Appealed

attorney's fees against the removing party may be imposed if the court finds that question. thus, the district court did not abuse its considerable discretion in (interpreting the purpose of 28 u.s.c. � 1442 as applying to only those cases clerk abuse of discretion standard. hornbuckle v. state farm lloyds, 385 f.3d 538, 350 u.s. at 408; see also willingham v. morgan, 395 u.s. 402, 406-08 (1969) an "officer of the court"). howard, 556 f.3d 261, 264 (5th cir. 2009) ("howard i"). in howard i, we grounds because he is an officer of the court and because his case raises a fees when the removing party lacks an objectively reasonable basis for removal. court remanded the case to state court and assessed attorney's fees against kaminetzky, 976 f. supp. 571, 584 (s.d. tex. 1996). section 1447(c) permits a attorney to use to remove a state action to federal court on the basis that he was before benavides, prado, southwick, circuit judges. appellants. appellants argue that their removal is supported by reasonable shifting by the district court. plaintiff-appellee d. douglas howard ("appellee") if we determine that an appeal is frivolous. see buck v. united states, 967 f.2d march 5, 2010 f i l e d attorney's fees against appellant. supreme court cases exclude a private 401 could only be assessed against "officers" of the federal courts. see cammer, no. 09-30642 germain, and david e. simmons ("appellants") appeal the imposition of fee- defendants - appellants see also ex parte garland, 71 u.s. 333, 378 (1866). in cammer, the court v. in the united states court of appeals usdc no. 2:09-cv-03450 summary calendar impose sanctions for abuse of the judicial process. chambers v. nasco, inc., 541 (5th cir. 2004). subsidiary factual findings underlying this award are sued the appellants in state court for defamation, and the appellants removed removal is improper under � 1447(c)). the supreme court in martin v. franklin 1060, 1062 (5th cir. 1992). an appeal is frivolous if "the result is obvious or the decision to deny sanctions because the appellants did not clearly present a constitutional question. while section 1442 permits a pending state action to the petition's state claims nor did the prior rico legislation raise a federal defendants-appellants mark edw. andrews, lesley simmons st. starkey, 852 f.2d 806, 811 (5th cir. 1988)). we recently considered a similar be removed for "any officer of the courts," the district court correctly found that court. this appeal is frivolous for purposes of rule 38. andrews was not an officer of the court in this context. the supreme court in appellants were on notice that the overruling of objections to remand was an appellant's "officer of the court" argument to be a ridiculous, "farfetched notion." case: 09-30642 document: 00511042999 page: 4 date filed: 03/05/2010 4 for the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court attorney's fees against appellants. federal courts have inherent power to appeal from the united states district court v. roscoe indep. sch. dist., 119 f.3d 1228, 1232 (5th cir. 1997). the decision to appellee and two law firms with which he is affiliated without imposing miranti v. lee, 3 f.3d 925, 927-28 (5th cir. 1993) (stating that both costs and per curiam: district court's decision to remand. see 28 u.s.c. � 1447(d). thus, we only the case to federal court. after hearing arguments on the issue, the district appellee's legal fees. lesley simmons st. germain, et al case: 09-30642 document: 00511042999 page: 3 date filed: 03/05/2010 we review a district court's award for attorney's fees under the deferential reversed the lower court's order because a contempt finding under 18 u.s.c. � capital corp., 546 u.s. 132, 141 (2005) noted that courts may award attorney's and grant the motion for sanctions and double costs and attorney's fees. attorney from the meaning of "officer of the court," and the district court found no. 09-30642 for the eastern district of louisiana cognizable civil rico claim. id. here, we impose sanctions of double costs and 2 fifth circuit plaintiff - appellee case: 09-30642 document: 00511042999 page: 2 date filed: 03/05/2010 3 d douglas howard, jr., is within the court's discretion. see, e.g., park nat. bank of houston v. taxing costs and attorney's fees to appellants because an objectively reasonable appellants under 28 u.s.c. � 1447(c). appellants do not seek review of the moreover, in the instant case, a constitutional question was not raised by reviewed for clear error. league of united latin am. citizens no. 4552 (lulac) charles r. fulbruge iii case: 09-30642 document: 00511042999 page: 1 date filed: 03/05/2010 impose any fee award against one or all the defendants, jointly and severally, request by appellee in litigation involving these parties in st. germain v. dismissed the appellant's appeal concerning their rico suit brought against attorney is not an officer of the court within the ordinary meaning of that term. united states court of appeals district court to award "just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney's appellee has moved under rule 38 for sanctions and double costs and the district court did not err in assessing attorney's fees against the basis for removal did not exist. sanctions. see id. at 264. however, we noted that it was a "close case" on our objectively reasonable basis exists. see hornbuckle, 385 f.3d at 541. fees" that are incurred as a result of the removal. 28 u.s.c. � 1447(c); see also obvious result when they were unable to support their argument at the district arguments of error are wholly without merit." see id. (quoting coghlan v. 501 u.s. 32, 43-44 (1991). rule 38 of the federal rules of appellate procedure cammer v. united states, 350 u.s. 399, 405-08 (1956), determined that an authorizes an award of "just damages and single or double costs to the appellee" where a federal officer required a federal forum and not intended for a private no. 09-30642 similarly in hornbuckle, we stated that attorney's fees should be denied if an for the fifth circuit consider the district court's decision to impose liability on all appellants for no. 09-30642