Teresa Anaya v. QuickTrim LLC et al

Filing 26

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: The Court hereby DENIES Defendant QuickTrim's Motion for Fees and Costs 17 . Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 12-1967-CAS (DTBx)

Title

‘O’

TERESA ANAYA V. QUICKTRIM, LLC

Present: The Honorable

Date

January 2, 2013

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:) DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR COSTS (filed
December 11, 2012)

On March 7, 2012, plaintiff Teresa Anaya commenced this action in the San
Bernardino County Superior Court against defendant QuickTrim LLC, a Florida limited
liability company. Dkt. No. 1 (“Anaya action”). On November 9, 2012, nonparties
Sandra Monsalve, Debbie Vongphachanh, and Andeia Cowan (“Monsalve et al.”) filed a
Notice of Removal with this Court. Dkt. No. 1. On December 17, 2012, the Court
granted plaintiff Anaya’s motion to remand this action to the San Bernardino County
Superior Court. Dkt. No. 21. The Court found that absent class members Monsalve et
al. could not remove this action to federal court, as they are not properly considered to be
“defendants” for purposes of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Id.
On December 11, 2012, defendant QuickTrim LLC filed a motion for costs and
expenses against Monsalve et al. related to their removal of this action to federal court.
Dkt. No. 17. Monsalve et al. opposed the motion on December 17, 2012, and defendant
filed a reply on December 19, 2012. After considering the parties’ arguments, the Court
finds and concludes as follows.
28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) provides that an order remanding a case “may require
payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a
result of the removal.” Generally, “courts may award attorney’s fees under § 1447(c)
only where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking
removal. Conversely, when an objectively reasonable basis exists, fees should be
denied.” Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005) (emphasis added);
see also Lussier v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 518 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 2008). The
decision of whether to award costs and expenses for an improper removal, however, lies
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 12-1967-CAS (DTBx)

Date

Title

‘O’

January 2, 2013

TERESA ANAYA V. QUICKTRIM, LLC

within the sound discretion of the district court. See Gardner v. UICI, 508 F.3d 559, 561
(9th Cir. 2007).
The Court concludes that an award of fees and costs is unwarranted. Monsalve et
al. presented this Court with an unusual case of absent class members attempting to
remove an action to federal court, on the grounds that they were the “true defendants” to
the state court action. While the Court found this contention unavailing, defendant
QuickTrim LLC now presents the Court with an equally unusual motion for fees and
costs pertaining to a removal that QuickTrim itself never opposed. The only party that
moved for a remand to state court and filed briefing in support of this motion was Anaya,
who was also the only party to oppose Monsalve et al.’s motion to transfer venue. Dkt.
No. 7, 11.1 Only after Anaya filed her motion did defendant QuickTrim interpose itself
in the action with a demand for fees and costs in the seemingly excessive amount of
$22,750. Without having participated in the federal court action in any meaningful way,
the Court finds that defendant’s motion should be denied. The dispute in federal court
was, in effect, one between two competing class representatives and their counsel.
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court hereby DENIES defendant
QuickTrim’s motion for fees and costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

:

00

CMJ

1

Anaya also filed a successful ex parte application to advance the hearing date of
her motion to remand. Dkt. No. 8.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2