Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Convent Corp. v. City of North Little Rock

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

April 27, 2015

Convent Corporation, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
City of North Little Rock, Arkansas, a Municipal Corporation; Joe Smith, Mayor, Individually and in his offical capacity; Debi Ross, City Council Member, Individually and in her official capacity; Beth White, City Council Member, Individually and in her official capacity; Linda Robinson, City Council Member, Individually and in her official capacity; Maurice Taylor, City Council Member, Individually and in his official capacity; Steve Baxter, City Council Member, Individually and in his official capacity; Bruce Foutch, City Council Member, Individually and in his official capacity; Murry Witcher, City Council Member, Individually and in his official capacity; Charlie Hight, City Council Member, Individually and in his official capacity; Tom Wadley, Director, Code Enforcment Division, Individually and in his official capacity; Felecia McHenry, Code Enforcement Officer, Individually and in her official capacity, Defendants - Appellees

Submitted, January 12, 2015

Page 480

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock.

For Convent Corporation, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant: Mickey Stevens, Stevens Law Firm, Benton, AR.

For City of North Little Rock, Arkansas, a Municipal Corporation, Joe Smith, Mayor, Individually and in his offical capacity, Debi Ross, City Council Member, Individually and in her official capacity, Beth White, City Council Member, Individually and in her official capacity, Linda Robinson, City Council Member, Individually and in her official capacity, Maurice Taylor, City Council Member, Individually and in his official capacity, Steve Baxter, City Council Member, Individually and in his official capacity, Bruce Foutch, City Council Member, Individually and in his official capacity, Murry Witcher, City Council Member, Individually and in his official capacity, Charlie Hight, City Council Member, Individually and in his official capacity, Tom Wadley, Director, Code Enforcment Division, Individually and in his official capacity, Felecia McHenry, Code Enforcement Officer, Individually and in her official capacity, Defendants - Appellees: Daniel Ladd McFadden, City Attorney's Office, North Little Rock, AR.

Before SMITH, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

Page 481

PER CURIAM.

Convent Corporation (" Convent" ) appeals the district court's[1] denial of its motion for attorneys' fees for improper removal against the City of North Little Rock (" City" ) and City officials[2] (collectively, " defendants" ). Because we conclude that removal was not improper, we affirm.

I. Background

Convent filed suit against the defendants in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, seeking to appeal a resolution that the North Little Rock City Council passed declaring Convent's property a nuisance and condemning the property. In the same complaint, Convent

also br[ought] claims against [d]efendants pursuant [to] 42 U.S.C. § § 1983, 1985(3)[,] 1986[,] and 1988 and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-123-101, et seq., for violations of the Fifth, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Article 2, Sections 15 and 22, and a common law claim of [t]respass.

The defendants removed the case to federal district court based on the federal claims and then moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.