Remedy Inc et al v. City of Rancho Mirage et al

Filing 26

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney's Fees 19 is hereby DENIED. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

‘O’

Case No.

CV 12-1200-CAS (SPx)

Title

REMEDY, INC., ET AL. V. CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE, ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

November 19, 2012

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Not present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants

Not present

Not present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers:) PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S
FEES (filed October 23, 2012)

The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing date of November 26, 2012 is
vacated, and the matter is hereby taken under submission.
On May 15, 2012, plaintiffs Remedy, Inc. and Klint Jackson filed suit against
defendants City of Rancho Mirage and Steve Buchanan in Riverside County Superior
Court. See Dkt. No. 1, Ex. A. Plaintiffs allege that they seek to operate a medical
marijuana dispensary within the city limits but were denied a permit to do so. Plaintiffs
therefore seek a declaration that various provisions of the Rancho Mirage municipal
code are preempted by California state law, in addition to a writ of mandate compelling
defendants to issue a certificate of occupancy to plaintiffs. Id. On July 13, 2012,
plaintiffs filed an ex parte application to for an expedited briefing schedule, which
defendants opposed. Before the Superior Court ruled on this application, defendants
removed to this Court on July 16, 2012, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). See Dkt. No.
1.
On September 17, 2012, the Court issued an order to show cause why the instant
case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction to the Riverside
County Superior Court. Dkt. No. 13. On October 5, 2012, defendants filed a notice of
non-opposition to this Court’s order. Dkt. No. 17. Accordingly, on October 9, 2012, the
Court remanded this case to the Riverside County Superior Court for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.
28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) provides that: “[a]n order remanding the case may require
payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a
result of the removal.” Plaintiffs now move for attorney’s fees on this basis, contending
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

CV 12-1200-CAS (SPx)

November 19, 2012

Title

REMEDY, INC., ET AL. V. CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE, ET AL.

that defendants’ removal of this suit to federal court was “objectively unreasonable.”
See Lussier v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 518 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 2008). The Court
in its discretion concludes that an award of fees is improper here. Despite this case being
removed on July 19, 2012, plaintiffs never filed a motion to remand. Instead, the Court
sua sponte issued an order to show cause why this case should not be remanded on
September 17, 2012, to which defendant filed a notice of non-opposition. As such,
plaintiffs did not have to move for a remand order, nor file any papers in conjunction
with such a motion. Accordingly, the Court finds that an award of attorney’s fees is
unwarranted here.
In accordance with the foregoing, plaintiffs’ motion is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 2 of 2