RC Lodge, LLC et al v. SE Property Holdings, LLC et al

Filing 67

ORDER denying 61 Motion for Attorney Fees & Costs. Signed by Chief Judge William H. Steele on 8/14/2012. (tgw)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION RC LODGE, LLC, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION 12-0112-WS-M ) SE PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER By order dated July 16, 2012, the Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to remand. (Doc. 59). The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for costs and fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). (Doc. 61). The removing defendant has filed a response in opposition and the plaintiffs a reply, (Docs. 63, 64), and the motion is ripe for resolution. The defendant argues that the plaintiffs’ motion is fatally untimely because it was not filed until after the case was remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 63 at 12-14). Every appellate decision brought to the Court’s attention, however, has ruled against the defendant’s position. See Bryant v. Britt, 420 F.3d 161, 164-66 (2nd Cir. 2005); Wisconsin v. Hotline Industries, Inc., 236 F.3d 363, 365 (7th Cir. 2000); Stallworth v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, 105 F.3d 252, 257 (6th Cir. 1997); Mints v. Educational Testing Service, 99 F.3d 1253, 1257-59 (3rd Cir. 1996); Moore v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc., 981 F.2d 443, 445 (9th Cir. 1992); Coward v. AC and S, Inc., 91 Fed. Appx. 919, 921-22 (5th Cir. 2004). The two unreasoned lower court decisions on which the defendant relies do not outweigh the wealth of reasoned appellate authority to the contrary. “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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “Absent unusual circumstances, courts may award attorney’s fees under § 1447(c) only where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.” Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005). The plaintiffs’ brief and superficial argument, which simply places out of context certain innocuous words and phrases used in the order of remand, (Doc. 61 at 2-3), falls far short of meeting this standard. Accordingly, the motion for costs and fees is denied. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of August, 2012. s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?