that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction does not necessarily render the award of sanctions void. In Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 135-39, 112 S.Ct. 1076, 1079-81, 117 L.Ed.2d 280 (1992), the Supreme Court, noting that an award of sanctions involves the determination of a collateral issue and not an adjudication of the merits of a “case or controversy,” held that despite a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, a district court may properly award sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P. II. Upholding such an award, is proper, in part, because “[t]he interest in having rules of procedure obeyed ... does not disappear upon a subsequent determination that the court was without subject-matter jurisdiction.” Id. at 139, 112 5.Ct. at 1081; see also Buster, 104 F.3d at 1190 (<HOLDING>). As its basis for awarding the sanctions, the
holding that rule 11 sanctions imposed by district court remained in effect after case was remanded to state court upon a finding that district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case holding that an award of sanctions under rule 11 survives despite a later determination that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction holding that a district court may impose sanctions for abuse of judicial process pursuant to rule 11 even after it is determined that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs claims holding that a district court had jurisdiction to impose rule 11 sanctions regardless of the existence of subjectmatter jurisdiction holding that a district court could constitutionally impose rule 11 sanctions in a case in which was later determined that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction