MB Financial, N.A. v. Stevens
678 F.3d 497
7th Cir.2012Background
- MB Financial, N.A., as guardian of Cristina Zvunca (a minor), sued six defendants in state court alleging abuse and related claims.
- Zvunca's general guardian Tiberiu Klein was authorized to intervene for sanctions against Novoselsky, who had discharged himself as Zvunca's counsel.
- Novoselsky dismissed the state-court complaint; defendants sought sanctions under Illinois Rule 137, and Klein sought sanctions on Zvunca's behalf.
- Novoselsky removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441; the district court remanded to state court amid a flood of motions.
- The district court awarded attorneys’ fees under § 1447(c) for improper removal and § 1927 for vexatious conduct; Novoselsky appealed.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s sanctions, holding removal was improper and fees were warranted, and awarded appellees defense costs on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was removal proper under §1441 after Klein's intervention motion? | Novoselsky contends removal became removable when Klein moved to intervene. | Appellees argue removal never became proper because Novoselsky was not a proper party or defendant, and diversity/consent rules were not met. | Removal was improper; the 30-day window did not restart, and diversity requirements were not satisfied. |
| Are the sanctions and fee awards under §1447(c) and §1927 warranted on appeal? | Novoselsky disputes the sanction awards and fee recovery on appeal. | Appellees assert sanctions were deserved for improper removal and multiplied proceedings; fees on appeal are recoverable. | Fees for defense of the district court’s decision are recoverable; the sanctions were affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) (unreasonable removal standards; baseline for §1447(c) awards)
- Garbie v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 211 F.3d 407 (7th Cir. 2000) (fee-shifting for defense of §1447(c) awards on appeal)
- CIR v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154 (1990) (support for appellate fees related to §1447(c) awards)
- Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. v. Martin, 178 U.S. 245 (1900) (consent requirement for removal)
- Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267 (1806) (necessity of complete diversity)