Jasmina Ivankovic v. Children's Hospital of WI

Filing

Filed Nonprecedential Disposition PER CURIAM.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]

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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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.