Gulf Coast Minerals, LLC et al v. Valentine Ventures, LLC et al

Filing 10

ORDER granting 2 Motion to Remand to Circuit Court of Conecuh County. Plaintiff's motion for award of attorney's fees is granted. Plaintiff is awarded the requested sum of $4,092.00. Signed by Chief Judge William H. Steele on 12/22/2014. (tgw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
GULF COAST MINERAL, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
VALENTINE VENTURES, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) CIVIL ACTION 14-0386-WS-N
)
)
)
)

ORDER
The Court by previous order agreed with the plaintiff that the defendants
lacked an objectively reasonable basis for removing this action, such that the
plaintiff was entitled to remand and an award of attorney’s fees. (Doc. 6). The
plaintiff has now submitted a fee petition with supporting affidavit, (Doc. 8), to
which the defendants have objected. (Doc. 9).
The defendants insist they had an objectively reasonable basis for removal.
As the Court has already held, they patently did not. The complaint asserts four
facially state-law claims (breach of contract, promissory fraud, accounting, and
declaratory judgment), none of which includes any federal question as an element.
The defendants’ position is that a federal question is presented because the
plaintiff committed RICO violations in the course of the parties’ dealings, such
that the plaintiff is “seeking financial benefits by committing violations of the
RICO Act.” (Doc. 4 at 8). As discussed in the Court’s previous order, such a
circumstance may furnish grounds for a defense or a counterclaim, but it
obviously does not impose on the plaintiff any burden under Alabama law to
prove, as an element of its state-law claims, that it did not commit RICO
violations. It therefore does not implicate Section 1331 under the authorities
previously cited.

The defendants also say they could remove because the plaintiff, by not
mentioning its alleged RICO violations in its complaint, “concealed a legitimate
ground of removal.” (Doc. 9 at 1). As just noted, however, a plaintiff’s violation
of RICO is not a legitimate ground for removing the plaintiff’s purely state-law
claims. The plaintiff’s alleged “concealment” of its alleged RICO violations is
thus plainly irrelevant.
“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 grant or denial of fees is committed to the discretion of
the district court. E.g., Bauknight v. Monroe County, 446 F.3d 1327, 1329 (11th
Cir. 2006). For reasons set forth herein and in its previous order, the Court
exercises its discretion in favor of an award of fees.
The statute permits an award of “actual” fees, but only such actual fees as
are “incurred as a result of the removal.” Some courts have concluded that fees
incurred “as a result of unreasonable billing practices” are not incurred as a result
of removal and thus are non-compensable. Huffman v. Saul Holdings Limited
Partnership, 262 F.3d 1128, 1134 (10th Cir. 2001).1 The defendants, however,
raise no objection to the amount of the requested fee, on the grounds of
reasonableness or otherwise. The Court will not do so on their behalf.
For the reasons set forth herein and in the Court’s previous order, the
plaintiff’s motion to remand is granted. This action is remanded to the Circuit
Court of Conecuh County.

1

Accord Adolph Coors Co. v. Truck Insurance Exchange, 383 F. Supp. 2d 93, 95
(D.D.C. 2005); Albion Pacific Property Resources, LLC v. Seligman, 329 F. Supp. 2d
1163, 1166 (N.D. Cal. 2004); Yance, Inge, and Associates, Inc. v. Enrollment First, Inc.,
2008 WL 5428227 at *1 (S.D. Ala. 2008).
2

For the reasons set forth herein and in the Court’s previous order, the
plaintiff’s motion for an award of attorney’s fees is granted. The plaintiff is
awarded the requested sum of $4,092.00.
DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of December, 2014.
s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3