Waste Control Spec. v. Envirocare
| Decision Date | 15 March 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-50952,98-50952 |
| Parties | (5th Cir. 2000) WASTE CONTROL SPECIALISTS, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ENVIROCARE OF TEXAS, INC.; ET AL., Defendants, ENVIROCARE OF TEXAS, INC; ENVIROCARE OF UTAH, INC.; KHOSROW B. SEMNANI; CHARLES A. JUDD; FRANK C. THORLEY, Defendants-Appellees |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Midland
(Opinion January 18, 2000, 5th Cir., 2000 199 F.3d 781)
Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC
The appellees' ("Envirocare") Petition for Panel Rehearing is GRANTED. Part IV of the Opinion is withdrawn and the following section is substituted therefore. In all other respects, the Petition for Panel Rehearing is Denied. Furthermore, no member of this panel nor judge in regular active service on the court having requested that the court be polled on Rehearing En Banc, (FED. R. APP. P. and 5TH CIR. R. 35) the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.
IV
Finally, we note that WCS has asked for the imposition of attorney's fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447(c), which states in relevant part: "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." In this connection, the district court on remand shall decide, in the light of this opinion and other facts and evidence as may be relevant, whether the removal of this case was or was not objectively reasonable, and, thus, whether to enter an appropriate award of attorney's fees as provided in 1447(c). See Valdes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 199 F.3d 290 (5th Cir. 2000).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Little v. Purdue Pharma, L.P.
...of complete pre-emption, there can be no other way around the well-pleaded complaint rule), superceded in unrelated part by 207 F.3d 225 (5th Cir.2000); M. Nahas & Co., Inc. v. First Nat'l Bank of Hot Springs, 930 F.2d 608, 612 (8th Cir.1991)(same). District courts have followed. See, e.g.,......
-
In re Texas
...See Waste Control Specialists v. Envirocare of Texas, Inc., 199 F.3d 781, 783 (5th Cir.), superseded in part on other grounds, 207 F.3d 225 (5th Cir.2000) (construing Rivet, supra). Here, it not disputed that the face of the State's petition does not raise a federal question. Accordingly, t......
-
In re 1994 Exxon Chemical Fire
...because our court, in Waste Control Specialists, LLC v. Envirocare of Texas, Inc., 199 F.3d 781, withdrawn & superseded in part, 207 F.3d 225 (5th Cir.2000), and the Supreme Court, in Caterpillar, had already addressed comparable situations and supplied the rule of decision in the case. See......
-
City of Oakland v. BP PLC
...Specialists, LLC v. Envirocare of Tex., Inc. , 199 F.3d 781, 786 (5th Cir.), opinion withdrawn and superseded in part on reh'g , 207 F.3d 225 (5th Cir. 2000). In light of these differences, we agree with the Fifth Circuit that a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), unlike a grant of summary judgm......