Kathleen Beusterien v. Icon Clinical Research, Inc.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:12-cv-02720-RWT. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999080893].. [12-2216]

Appeal: 12-2216

Doc: 31

Filed: 04/05/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2216

KATHLEEN BEUSTERIEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ICON CLINICAL RESEARCH, INC.; OXFORD OUTCOMES, INC.; OXFORD
OUTCOMES 2007 LIMITED; PAUL QUARTERMAN; ANDREW LLOYD,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:12cv-02720-RWT)

Submitted:

March 26, 2013

Decided:

April 5, 2013

Before DAVIS, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew J. Morris, MORVILLO LLP, Washington, D.C.; Andrew A.
Nicely, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.
Andrew K. Fletcher,
PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Kathleen A.
Mullen, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-2216

Doc: 31

Filed: 04/05/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Kathleen Beusterien appeals the district court’s order
remanding the underlying 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.

Beusterien

does

not

challenge

the

remand

order, limiting this appeal only to the denial of her request
for a fee award.
We
court’s

We affirm.

review

order

denying

§ 1447(c) (2006).
Cir. 1996).

for

an

abuse

attorney’s

of

discretion

fees

pursuant

the
to

district
28

U.S.C.

See In re Lowe, 102 F.3d 731, 733 n.2 (4th

“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

Corp.,

546

an

award

U.S.

132,

is

just[,]”

138

(2005),

Martin
but

committed to the court’s sound discretion.

v.

Franklin

whether

to

do

Capital
so

is

Id. at 139-41.

Based on our review of the facts of this case and the
relevant law, we conclude that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in denying Beusterien’s request for a fee award.
2

Appeal: 12-2216

Doc: 31

Accordingly,

Filed: 04/05/2013

we

affirm

the

Pg: 3 of 3

district

court’s

order.

See

Beusterien v. Icon Clinical Research, Inc., No. 8:12-cv-02720RWT (D. Md. filed Oct. 1, 2012; entered Oct. 2, 2012).
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3