Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Davis v. Rutherford, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Huntington National Bank's request for attorney's fees following the improper removal of an underlying state court proceeding to federal court. The Court of Appeals found that because Huntington was not a party to the district court proceedings, the district court acted within its discretion in denying Huntington's motion for attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-06-07 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-1091

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Huntington National Bank's request for attorney's fees following the improper removal of an underlying state court proceeding to federal court. The Court of Appeals found that because Huntington was not a party to the district court proceedings, the district court acted within its discretion in denying Huntington's motion for attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    5 views3 pages

    Davis v. Rutherford, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Huntington National Bank's request for attorney's fees following the improper removal of an underlying state court proceeding to federal court. The Court of Appeals found that because Huntington was not a party to the district court proceedings, the district court acted within its discretion in denying Huntington's motion for attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 10-1091

    MARK E. DAVIS; TAMMY L. DAVIS,


    Plaintiffs - Appellees,
    v.
    REO AMERICA, INCORPORATED, a Florida corporation, and any
    and all persons; REBUILD AMERICA, INCORPORATED, a Florida
    Corporation,
    Defendants Appellees,
    and
    MIKE RUTHERFORD, Sheriff of Kanawha County; VERA MCCORMICK,
    Clerk of the County Commission of Kanawha County; 100 JOHN
    DOES, having or claiming any interest in real estate
    identified
    as
    51
    Woodbridge
    Drive,
    Charleston,
    West
    Virginia,
    Defendants,
    v.
    HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, N.A.,
    Movant Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
    Joseph R. Goodwin,
    Chief District Judge. (2:09-cv-00096)

    Submitted:

    June 1, 2010

    Decided:

    June 7, 2010

    Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Philip Brown Hereford, HEREFORD & HEREFORD, Charleston, West


    Virginia, for Appellant.
    Mark E. Davis, Tammy L. Davis,
    Appellees Pro Se; James William Lane, Jr., Charleston, West
    Virginia, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Huntington

    National

    Bank

    appeals

    from

    the

    district

    courts order denying its request for attorneys fees following


    the

    improper

    removal

    of

    the

    underlying

    proceeding.

    Because

    Huntington was not a party to the proceedings in district court,


    the court acted within its discretion in denying Huntingtons
    See People for the Ethical Treatment

    motion for attorney fees.


    of

    Animals

    v.

    Doughney,

    263

    F.3d

    (providing standard of review).


    find

    no

    reversible

    error.

    359,

    370

    (4th

    Cir.

    2001)

    We have reviewed the record and


    Accordingly,

    reasons stated by the district court.

    we

    affirm

    for

    the

    Davis v. Rutherford, No.

    2:09-cv-00096 (S.D. W. Va. filed Oct. 6, 2009 & entered Oct. 8,


    2009).
    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and


    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like