Ricky Kamden-Ouaffo v. Naturasource International LLC
693 F. App'x 172
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Ricky Kamdem-Ouaffo filed a 14-count state-law complaint in New Jersey state court against NaturaSource International LLC, its sole member Laszlo Pokorny, Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc., and Colgate Palmolive Co.
- After discovery, defendants moved for summary judgment in June 2015; Kamdem-Ouaffo removed the case to federal court on August 14, 2015.
- The District Court remanded the case to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on September 29, 2015.
- On December 4, 2015 the District Court awarded attorney’s fees and costs to the defendants; those awards were not appealed within 30 days.
- On April 12, 2016 the District Court entered amended money judgments clarifying the fee awards and adding an interest provision tied to the weekly average 1‑year Treasury yield; Kamdem‑Ouaffo appealed the amended judgments.
- The Third Circuit’s review was limited to the validity of the amendment (interest addition), not the underlying fee awards, because the original fee order was final and unappealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court may review the District Court’s remand order | Kamdem‑Ouaffo sought review of the remand | Defendants argued remand is not appealable | Court: Remand order not reviewable on appeal (28 U.S.C. § 1447(d)) |
| Whether the December 4, 2015 fee award is reviewable on appeal | Kamdem‑Ouaffo challenged fees | Defendants argued the fee order was final and appeal window elapsed | Court: Fee award was final and not timely appealed; cannot be reviewed |
| Whether the April 12, 2016 amended money judgments adding interest are reviewable | Kamdem‑Ouaffo challenged the amended judgment (interest) | Defendants defended the amendment as valid clarification/entry of judgment | Court: Appellate jurisdiction limited to the validity of the amendment; court affirmed the amended judgments as to the interest provision |
| Whether any arguments against the fee award are preserved | Kamdem‑Ouaffo raised no separate challenge in briefs | Defendants noted waiver for failure to brief | Court: Arguments not briefed are waived |
Key Cases Cited
- A.S. ex rel. Miller v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 769 F.3d 204 (3d Cir. 2014) (remand order not reviewable on appeal)
- Roxbury Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Anthony S. Cupo Agency, 316 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2003) (attorney‑fee orders may be immediately appealable)
- Mints v. Educ. Testing Serv., 99 F.3d 1253 (3d Cir. 1996) (appealability of fee awards)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (U.S. 2007) (timely filing of notice of appeal is jurisdictional)
- Harman v. Harper, 7 F.3d 1455 (9th Cir. 1993) (review limited to validity of an amendment to a judgment)