Kathleen Beusterien v. Icon Clinical Research, Inc.

Fourth Circuit

Kathleen Beusterien v. Icon Clinical Research, Inc.

517 F. App'x 198

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 5, 2013

Docket12-2216

StatusUnpublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 517 F. App'x 198 (Kathleen Beusterien v. Icon Clinical Research, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kathleen Beusterien v. Icon Clinical Research, Inc., 517 F. App'x 198 (4th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kathleen Beusterien appeals the district court’s order remanding the underlying *199 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. Beust-erien does not challenge the remand order, limiting this appeal only to the denial of her request for a fee award. We affirm.

We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s order denying attorney’s fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (2006). See In re Lowe, 102 F.3d 731, 733 n. 2 (4th Cir.1996). “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 an award is just[,]” Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 138, 126 S.Ct. 704, 163 L.Ed.2d 547 (2005), but whether to do so is committed to the court’s sound discretion. Id. at 139-41, 126 S.Ct. 704.

Based on our review of the facts of this ease and the relevant law, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Beusterien’s request for a fee award. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See Beusterien v. Icon Clinical Research, Inc., No. 8:12-cv-02720-RWT (D.Md. filed Oct. 1, 2012; entered Oct. 2, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kathleen Beusterien appeals the district court’s order remanding the underlying *199 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. Beust-erien does not challenge the remand order, limiting this appeal only to the denial of her request for a fee award. We affirm.

We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s order denying attorney’s fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (2006). See In re Lowe, 102 F.3d 731, 733 n. 2 (4th Cir.1996). “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 an award is just[,]” Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 138, 126 S.Ct. 704, 163 L.Ed.2d 547 (2005), but whether to do so is committed to the court’s sound discretion. Id. at 139-41, 126 S.Ct. 704.

Based on our review of the facts of this ease and the relevant law, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Beusterien’s request for a fee award. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See Beusterien v. Icon Clinical Research, Inc., No. 8:12-cv-02720-RWT (D.Md. filed Oct. 1, 2012; entered Oct. 2, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

517 F. App'x 198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kathleen-beusterien-v-icon-clinical-research-inc-ca4-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack