Stephen N. Martyak v. Judith A. Martyak

Eleventh Circuit

Stephen N. Martyak v. Judith A. Martyak

171 F. App'x 768

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedFebruary 28, 2006

Docket05-13843

StatusUnpublished

This text of 171 F. App'x 768 (Stephen N. Martyak v. Judith A. Martyak) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stephen N. Martyak v. Judith A. Martyak, 171 F. App'x 768 (11th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Stephen N. Martyak appeals an order awarding attorney’s fees to his ex-wife, Judith A. Martyak, for Mr. Martyak’s improper removal of a state case to federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). We affirm.

In 1991, Judith A. Martyak initiated dissolution of marriage proceedings in Florida state court against Mr. Martyak, and alimony was awarded in favor of Ms. Mart-yak. Mr. Martyak brought several appeals in Florida courts challenging the *769 judgment, but the award of alimony was affirmed in each appeal. In August 2005, Mr. Martyak filed a notice of removal in federal district court and sought reversal of the alimony award on the ground that it violated several provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The district court concluded that Mr. Martyak’s claims sought federal review of a final state court judgment and it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 1311, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416, 44 S.Ct. 149, 150, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923). The district court remanded the case to state court and, because Mr. Martyak sought removal in violation of well-settled law, ordered Mr. Martyak to pay Ms. Martyak $8850 in attorney’s fees.

We review an order awarding attorney’s fees for abuse of discretion. Fowler v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 915 F.2d 616, 617 (11th Cir.1990). Section 1447(c) provides, “An order remanding the case may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.” 28 U.S.C. 1447(c). “Central to the determination of whether attorneys’ fees should be granted is the propriety of the defendant’s decision to remove.” Garcia v. Amfels, Inc., 254 F.3d 585, 587 (5th Cir.2001).

Mr. Martyak’s removal of the case was clearly improper. “[A] United States District Court has no authority to review final judgments of a state court in judicial proceedings.” Powell v. Powell, 80 F.3d 464, 466 (11th Cir.1996) (quoting Feldman, 460 U.S. at 482, 103 S.Ct. at 1315). The district court did not abuse its discretion.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

Stephen N. Martyak appeals an order awarding attorney’s fees to his ex-wife, Judith A. Martyak, for Mr. Martyak’s improper removal of a state case to federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). We affirm.

In 1991, Judith A. Martyak initiated dissolution of marriage proceedings in Florida state court against Mr. Martyak, and alimony was awarded in favor of Ms. Mart-yak. Mr. Martyak brought several appeals in Florida courts challenging the *769 judgment, but the award of alimony was affirmed in each appeal. In August 2005, Mr. Martyak filed a notice of removal in federal district court and sought reversal of the alimony award on the ground that it violated several provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The district court concluded that Mr. Martyak’s claims sought federal review of a final state court judgment and it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 1311, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416, 44 S.Ct. 149, 150, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923). The district court remanded the case to state court and, because Mr. Martyak sought removal in violation of well-settled law, ordered Mr. Martyak to pay Ms. Martyak $8850 in attorney’s fees.

We review an order awarding attorney’s fees for abuse of discretion. Fowler v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 915 F.2d 616, 617 (11th Cir.1990). Section 1447(c) provides, “An order remanding the case may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.” 28 U.S.C. 1447(c). “Central to the determination of whether attorneys’ fees should be granted is the propriety of the defendant’s decision to remove.” Garcia v. Amfels, Inc., 254 F.3d 585, 587 (5th Cir.2001).

Mr. Martyak’s removal of the case was clearly improper. “[A] United States District Court has no authority to review final judgments of a state court in judicial proceedings.” Powell v. Powell, 80 F.3d 464, 466 (11th Cir.1996) (quoting Feldman, 460 U.S. at 482, 103 S.Ct. at 1315). The district court did not abuse its discretion.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 F. App'x 768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stephen-n-martyak-v-judith-a-martyak-ca11-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack