Ikuo Ogihara v. Andrew Kim et al

Filing 16

MINUTES IN CHAMBERS - ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND AND DENYING REQUEST FOR FEES 11 by Judge Hernan D. Vera. The Court concludes that Defendants' position (while a weak one) was at least plausible given the absence of any forum selec tion language in the other key documents. The Court also notes the speed in which Defendants met and conferred after service and their prompt acquiescence to the remand. For those reasons, Plaintiffs' request for attorneys fees is denied. Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand is otherwise granted. MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (lom)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 2:24-cv-07882-HDV-(RAOx)

JS-6

Date November 25, 2024

Title Ikuo Ogihara v. Andrew Kim et al.
Present: The Honorable Hernán D. Vera, United States District Judge
Wendy Hernandez
Deputy Clerk

Not Reported
Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s):

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS—ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND AND
DENYING REQUEST FOR FEES [11]
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s (unopposed) Motion to Remand (“Motion”)
[Dkt. No. 11]. Plaintiff’s Motion is granted. But because there was an objectively
reasonable basis for removal, Plaintiff’s attendant request for attorney’s fees is
denied.
I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this action in state court on September 9, 2024. Notice of
Removal, Ex. A (“Complaint”) [Dkt. No. 1-1]. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff
Ikuo Ogihara lent Defendant HBSM Care Inc. (formerly “Sports Med Care Inc.”)
$500,000 in the form of a revolving line of credit agreement (“RLCA”) and a
promissory note (“Note”). Complaint ¶ 2. Defendant Andrew Kim—owner of
HBSM—entered into a guaranty agreement with Plaintiff (“Guaranty”), personally
guaranteeing repayment of the underlying loan. Id. Plaintiff alleges Defendants
are in breach of contract because of their failure to make payment towards the
repayment of the loan. Id. ¶ 3.

Page 1 of 3

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk WH

Defendants removed the action on September 13, 2024—before defendant
had been served—based on diversity jurisdiction. Notice of Removal at 2. On
October 2, 2024, Defendants informed Plaintiff that they would not be contesting
remand. Declaration of Michael A. Fuoroli in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion
(“Fuoroli”) ¶ 12. Plaintiff responded that it would nonetheless seek attorney’s fees
because of the removal. Id. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion on October 7, 2024
[Dkt. No. 11], and the Court took it under submission [Dkt. No. 15].
II.

LEGAL STANDARD

An order for remand can serve as the basis of an order 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, however, fees and costs are
awarded “only where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for
seeking removal.” City of Stanton v. Green Tree Remedy, No. SA-CV-151733AGJ-CGX, 2016 WL 316776, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2016) (citing Martin v.
Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141(2005)). This standard “recognize[s] the
desire to deter removals sought for the purpose of prolonging litigation and
imposing costs on the opposing party.” Id. at 140.
III.

DISCUSSION

Remand is not contested. Declaration of Rachael M. Fagenson in Support of
Defendants’ Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion at 2 [Dkt. No. 13] (“[O]n
October 2, 2024, [defense counsel] responded to Mr. Fuoroli’s email confirming
that Defendants had promptly agreed to the remand and there was therefore no
need for Plaintiff to prepare or file a motion to remand.”). The only remaining
issue is whether Plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees related to the filing of this
Motion. Motion at 5–6 (Defendants “agreed that remand was proper” but indicated
they are “not agreeable to payment of any attorneys’ fees”).
Plaintiff argues that there was no objectively reasonable basis for removal
because the Guaranty contained a forum selection clause limiting the proper forum
to state courts in California. Motion at 10. And since the RLCA, Note, and
Gauranty “must be read as one contemporaneous agreement, the express forum
selection language within the Guaranty must apply to all related agreements.” Id.
at 7. In response, Defendants contend that since “the gravamen of Plaintiff’s
Complaint involves the underlying documents”—i.e., the RLCA and Note, which
Page 2 of 3

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk WH

do not contain the forum selection language—Defendants had an objectively
reasonable basis for removal. Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s
Motion (“Opposition”).
The Court concludes that Defendants’ position (while a weak one) was at
least plausible given the absence of any forum selection language in the other key
documents. The Court also notes the speed in which Defendants met and conferred
after service and their prompt acquiescence to the remand. For those reasons,
Plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees is denied.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand is otherwise granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 3 of 3

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk WH