UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1584
CALIFORNIA CASUALTY INDEMNITY EXCHANGE,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSEPHAT MUA; FRANCOISE VANDENPLAS,
Defendants - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:15-cv-00060-PJM)
Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: December 1, 2016
Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Josephat Mua, Francoise Vandenplas, Appellants Pro Se. Thomas
V. McCarron, James Olin Spiker, IV, SEMMES, BOWEN & SEMMES,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Appellants Josephat Mua and Francoise Vandenplas seek to
appeal the district court’s orders remanding the underlying
unjust enrichment action to state court and denying their
motions for reconsideration and to reopen. California Casualty
Indemnity Exchange (California Casualty) has moved to dismiss
the appeal as frivolous, and also asks that Appellants be
ordered to pay the damages, costs, and attorney’s fees
associated with this appeal. Appellants have filed motions to
exceed the length limitations for their appellate filings and
for leave to file a corrected response to California Casualty’s
motion to dismiss, and have also filed applications to proceed
in forma pauperis.
Subject to exceptions not applicable here, “[a]n order
remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is
not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d)
(2012); see E.D. ex rel. Darcy v. Pfizer, Inc., 722 F.3d 574,
579-83 (4th Cir. 2013). Because the district court’s orders do
not fall within the exceptions provided by § 1447, the orders
are not appealable.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. We grant Appellants’ motions to exceed the length
limitations for their appellate filings and to file a corrected
response, and deny Appellants’ in forma pauperis applications.
2
We deny California Casualty’s motion to dismiss and for
sanctions. *
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the material before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
* We note that this is Appellants’ second unsuccessful
appeal of the same matter, and we therefore warn Appellants that
another appeal may subject them to sanctions.
3