Richel Nash v. Jo-Ann Stores, LLC

Filing 26

ORDER by Judge Dale S. Fischer GRANTING in Part and DENYING in Part Richel Nash's Motion for Remand and Request for Attorneys' Fees (Dkt. 20 ). The motion for remand is GRANTED and the request for attorneys' fees and costs is DENIED. (MD JS-6. Case Terminated.) (jp)

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHEL NASH, an individual,
Plaintiff,
v.
JO-ANN STORES, LLC, a
corporation, and DOES 1-100,
inclusive,

No. 2:24-cv-02222
Order GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART Richel
Nash’s Motion for Remand and
Request for Attorneys’ Fees (Dkt.
20)

Defendants.

Defendant Jo-Ann Stores, LLC removed this action under 28
U.S.C. § 1441(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Dkt. 1 (NOR). Plaintiff Richel
Nash moves for remand and requests attorneys’ fees and costs. Dkt. 20
(Mot.). The Court deems this matter appropriate for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. [The hearing
set for January 13, 2025 is removed from the Court’s calendar.]
Nash stipulates that she “will not seek or accept any amount in
excess of $74,999 in this action.” Dkt. 20-3 ¶ 5. Jo-Ann Stores does not
oppose remand per Nash’s stipulation. Dkt. 22 (Opp’n) at 2. Jo-Ann
Stores opposes only Nash’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs,
arguing that removal was objectively reasonable. Opp’n at 2. The
Court agrees.
There is complete diversity here because Nash, who is a citizen of
California, does not dispute that none of the owners or members of Jo-

Ann Stores are citizens of California. See Johnson v. Columbia
Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining
that “an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members
are citizens” for purposes of diversity jurisdiction). And at the time of
removal, Nash’s Statement of Damages sought a total of $1.4 million,
well over the $75,000 jurisdictional minimum. See NOR ¶ 12. Because
there are no “unusual circumstances warrant[ing] a departure from
the” general rule that courts may award attorneys’ fees “only where the
removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking
removal[,]” the Court denies Nash’s request for fees. Martin v.
Franklin Cap. Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005).
The motion for remand is GRANTED and the request for
attorneys’ fees and costs is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________
____________________________
Honorable Dale S.
S Fischer
United States District Judge

Date: January 7, 2025

2