Rain & Hail Ins Svc v. Sapp
This text of Rain & Hail Ins Svc v. Sapp (Rain & Hail Ins Svc v. Sapp) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
No. 99-10860 -1-
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-10860 Conference Calendar
RAIN & HAIL INSURANCE SERVICE,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHRISTOPHER SAPP, Individually, doing business as C & J Sapp Publishing Company; JEAN SAPP, Individually, doing business as C & J Sapp Publishing Company,
Defendants-Appellants.
-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:99-CV-174 -------------------- April 12, 2000
Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Christopher and Jean Sapp, appearing individually and doing
business as C & J Sapp Publishing Company (“the Sapps”), appeal
the district court’s order remanding the instant lawsuit, brought
against them by Rain & Hail Insurance Service (“Rain & Hail”) for
alleged nonpayment of insurance premiums, to Texas state court.
They argue that the removal order is appealable because 28 U.S.C.
§ 1227(d) provides them with an appeal as of right.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 99-10860 -2-
Contrary to their assertion, because the district court’s
remand order was based on the untimeliness of the removal, a
ground enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), the removal order is
not appealable. Things Remembered, Inc. V. Petrarca, 516 U.S.
124, 127-28 (1996); 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). Accordingly, the appeal
is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Rain & Hail’s motion for sanctions, pursuant to Fed. R. App.
R. 38, is GRANTED. This appeal is frivolous. The Sapps’
arguments are wholly without merit, and the result of the appeal
is obvious; accordingly, the Sapps are ORDERED to pay sanctions
in the amount of $1,500, as double costs and reasonable
attorneys’ fees. See Buck v. United States, 967 F.2d 1060, 1062
(5th Cir. 1993).
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS IMPOSED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Rain & Hail Ins Svc v. Sapp, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rain-hail-ins-svc-v-sapp-ca5-2000.