Jasmina Ivankovic v. Children's Hospital of WI


Filed Nonprecedential Disposition PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. Michael S. Kanne, Circuit Judge; Diane S. Sykes, Circuit Judge and David F. Hamilton, Circuit Judge. [6839201-1] [6839201] [17-1127]

Download PDF
Case: 17-1127 Document: 12 Filed: 05/05/2017 Pages: 2 NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted May 4, 2017* Decided May 5, 2017 Before MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge No. 17-1127 JASMINA IVANKOVIC, Plaintiff-Appellant, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 16-CV-1489-JPS v. CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL OF WISCONSIN, INC., Defendant-Appellee. J.P. Stadtmueller, Judge. ORDER Jasmina Ivankovic filed this pro se litigation seeking to hold Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin, Inc. accountable for permanent injuries she sustained in a slip-and-fall while working at the facility in 1998. She asserted subject-matter jurisdiction under the diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, but both Ivankovic and the hospital are citizens of the same state, Wisconsin. And common citizenship aside, she did not allege an amount in controversy. The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We have agreed to decide this case without oral argument because the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. See FED R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). * Case: 17-1127 No. 17-1127 Document: 12 Filed: 05/05/2017 Pages: 2 Page 2 That decision is unassailable, prompting the hospital to argue in its brief that we should sanction Ivankovic under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 for filing a frivolous appeal. But that rule says a litigant seeking sanctions must request them in a separate motion, which the hospital has not done. And, ironically, in the one opinion cited by the hospital in support of its request for sanctions, we not only pointed out Rule 38’s requirement of a “separately filed motion” but said we are “not inclined to award sanctions in favor of a party that cannot be bothered to follow the rules itself.” Heinen v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 671 F.3d 669, 671 (7th Cir. 2012). That inclination has not changed, though we do warn Ivankovic that this reprieve will not insulate her from sanctions if she pursues other frivolous litigation in the future. AFFIRMED.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?