	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 98-50952
_____________________
WASTE CONTROL SPECIALISTS, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ENVIROCARE OF TEXAS, INC.; ET AL.,
Defendants,
ENVIROCARE OF TEXAS, INC;
ENVIROCARE OF UTAH, INC.;
KHOSROW B. SEMNANI;
CHARLES A. JUDD; FRANK C. THORLEY,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas, Midland
_________________________________________________________________
March 15, 2000
(Opinion January 18, 2000, 5th Cir., 2000 _____F.3d____)
Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge:
ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC
The appellees' ("Envirocare") Petition for Panel Rehearing is
GRANTED. Part IV of the Opinion is withdrawn and the following
section is substituted therefore. In all other respects, the
Petition for Panel Rehearing is Denied. Furthermore, no member of
this panel nor judge in regular active service on the court having
requested that the court be polled on Rehearing En Banc, (FED. R.
APP. P. and 5TH CIR. R. 35) the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is
DENIED.

IV
Finally, we note that WCS has asked for the imposition of
attorney's fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), which states in
relevant part: "An order remanding the case may require payment of
just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees,
incurred as a result of the removal." In this connection, the
district court on remand shall decide, in the light of this opinion
and other facts and evidence as may be relevant, whether the removal
of this case was or was not objectively reasonable, and, thus,
whether to enter an appropriate award of attorney's fees as provided
in § 1447(c). See Valdes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 199 F.3d 290
(5th Cir. 2000).
2