Wieters v. Bon Secours-St. Francis Xavier Hospital, Inc., 713 S.E.2d 624

Underlying state-law defamation and civil conspiracy suit against the Hospital and several executives, with an NPDB report under HCQIA in 2003.
First removal to federal court in 2004 was granted for remand in 2005; case remained in state court thereafter for five years of discovery and mediation.
On March 2, 2010, three hours before trial, Appellants again removed the case to federal court on grounds tied to Dr. Wieters' February 8 memo and related papers.
State court judge imposed sanctions after remand by the federal court, totaling about $68,000, for delay and improper removal.
The federal district judge remanded again in March 2010; the state supreme court affirmed sanctions in part and modified the award, reversing non-fee sanctions.
Issues on appeal focus on whether removal can justify sanctions and whether the sanctions were properly limited in scope.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can removal be the basis for sanctions?	Wieters contends removal delay and lack of good grounds justify sanctions.	Appellants argue removal was made in good faith on a novel basis.	Yes; sanctions based on the improper second removal were upheld in part.
Were the sanctions properly limited?	Sanctions beyond costs were improper and excessive.	Sanctions beyond costs were warranted given delay and frivolous conduct.	Sanctions beyond costs were an abuse of discretion and reversed; costs and fees related to the removal were affirmed.

Runyon v. Wright, 322 S.C. 15 (1996) (sanctions standard under Rule 11; abuse of discretion review)
ITT Indus. Credit Co. v. Durango Crushers, Inc., 832 F.2d 307 (4th Cir. 1987) (patently without merit removal sanction support)
Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804 (1986) (litigation provoking problem; federal issue in state action)
Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (change to an objective standard for Rule 11 sanctions)