City of Stanton v. Green Tree Remedy et al

Filing 17

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: Granting Motion to Remand and Awarding Attorneys Fees 11 . See Order for details. (jtil)

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

SACV 15-1733 AG (JCGx)

Title

CITY OF STANTON v. GREEN TREE REMEDY ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

January 25, 2016

ANDREW J. GUILFORD

Lisa Bredahl
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Proceedings:

Date

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

[IN CHAMBERS] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
REMAND AND AWARDING ATTORNEY FEES

Defendants Green Tree Remedy and V.I.P. Management LLC removed this lawsuit from
state court. (See Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff City of Stanton asserted three claims against
Defendants for public nuisance and health and safety code violations under California state
law, Stanton ordinances, and Stanton municipal code sections. (See Dkt. No. 1-1 at 1.)
Plaintiff also mentions a federal statute once in its complaint. (See id. at 3:23.) Based on that
one reference, Defendants argued that this case presents a question of federal law.
Plaintiff filed (1) a motion asking the Court to remand the case and award Plaintiff attorney
fees for its work in filing the motion to remand (“Motion”) and (2) a related request for
judicial notice (“RJN”). (See Dkt. Nos. 11, 12.) Defendants have not filed any opposition.
The Court GRANTS the Motion and awards $5000 in attorney fees.
1. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
“The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1)
is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and
readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R.
Evid. 201(b). This includes undisputed matters of public record. Lee v. City of L.A., 250 F.3d
668, 690 (9th Cir. 2001).
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 4

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

SACV 15-1733 AG (JCGx)

Date

January 25, 2016

Title

CITY OF STANTON v. GREEN TREE REMEDY ET AL.

Plaintiff asks the Court to take judicial notice of three documents: (1) the underlying state
court complaint in this case; (2) an ex parte application filed in the state court proceeding
before this case was removed; and (3) a copy of the online docket in the underlying state
court case. (See Dkt. No. 12 at 2:5–14.) The state court complaint was already filed in this
case as an exhibit to the notice of removal, and doesn’t need to be judicially noticed. (See
Dkt. No. 1-1.) The Court finds that the ex parte application and the copy of the online
docket are appropriate for judicial notice. Defendants have not argued otherwise.
2. ANALYSIS
Parties have to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition at least 21 days before a
motion is going to be heard. See L.R. 7-9. Failure to file a required paper on time can
constitute consent to the granting or denial of a motion. See L.R. 7-12. So Defendants’ failure
to oppose the Motion is enough to justify granting it. The Court doesn’t have to go any
further in its analysis. But there are also substantive reasons to grant the Motion.
2.1 Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Subject matter jurisdiction is sacred. The Constitution confines the power of federal courts,
and federal courts are in turn tasked with policing their own exercise of power. See U.S.
Const. art. III, § 2; Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Courts take this duty seriously and guard their
limited jurisdiction jealously. Ghazaryan v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 42 F. Supp. 3d 1341, 1342
(C.D. Cal. 2014). They assume that cases are outside of their power to rule, and require
parties to prove otherwise. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).
When dealing with removal statutes, they strictly construe those statutes against removal.
Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 667 (9th Cir. 2012).
Against that legal backdrop, Defendants’ showing is basically nonexistent. As noted, they
haven’t even tried to oppose this Motion. And their argument in their two page notice of
removal is three sentences long.
This action is a civil action and is one which may be removed to this Court by the
Defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) in that the Plaintiff relies upon and
cites specifically 21 U.S.C. § 801, et seq. as a basis for each and every cause of
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 4

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

SACV 15-1733 AG (JCGx)

Date

January 25, 2016

Title

CITY OF STANTON v. GREEN TREE REMEDY ET AL.
action. At paragraph 10 of the complaint, in a section titled “FACTS COMMON
TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION,” the Plaintiffs cite 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) as a
basis for taking action against the Defendants. In each state cause of action, the
Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege paragraph 10 of the Complaint and repeat
claims of federal illegality as a basis for their actions taken against Defendants.

(Dkt. No. 1 at 2:7–14.) Plaintiff alleges violations of California state law, city ordinances, and
city municipal code sections. (See Dkt. No. 1-1 at 1.) Plaintiff’s one mention of a federal law
doesn’t transform those issues into questions of federal law, as Defendant says it does. See
Hedges v. Legal Servs. Corp., 663 F. Supp. 300, 301 (N.D. Cal. 1987) (quoting Merrell Dow
Pharm. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808 (1986) (“Generally, an action ‘arises under’ federal law
only if ‘federal law creates the cause of action.’”) Any argument to the contrary seems absurd.
So why did Defendants remove? Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ removal was just a delay
tactic to avoid a ruling on a motion Plaintiff filed in state court. (See Dkt. No. 18–20.) It sure
looks that way. Plaintiff filed an ex parte application in state court seeking a temporary
restraining order and order to show cause regarding a preliminary injunction. (See Dkt. No.
12 at 17–26.) The day of the ex parte hearing, Defendants filed their notice of removal. (See
id. at 28.) Plaintiff’s counsel represents (under penalty of perjury) that the state court judge
accordingly didn’t rule on the ex parte application. (See Dkt. No. 11-2 at 16–18.) Plaintiff’s
counsel also represents (again, under penalty of perjury) that Defendants didn’t meaningfully
participate in the meet-and-confer process leading up to the filing of this Motion. (See id. at
2:19–26, Ex. 2.) And now, Defendants haven’t opposed this important Motion in writing,
and failed to appear at the hearing. Defendants seem to have disappeared from this litigation.
2.2 Attorney Fees
An order remanding a case to state court can 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 can award attorney fees on remand “only where the
removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.” Martin v. Franklin
Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141(2005). This test “recognize[s] the desire to deter removals
sought for the purpose of prolonging litigation and imposing costs on the opposing party.”
Id. at 140.
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 3 of 4

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

SACV 15-1733 AG (JCGx)

Date

January 25, 2016

Title

CITY OF STANTON v. GREEN TREE REMEDY ET AL.

An attorney fees award is appropriate here. As discussed in Section 2.1, Defendants’ removal
appears motivated by a desire to delay, and not by any objectively reasonable basis for
removal. Defendants certainly haven’t disputed this.
Plaintiff’s counsel states that Plaintiff incurred $4,641.30 in attorney fees up through the
filing of the Motion. (See Dkt. No. 11-2 at 2:27–28.) Plaintiff’s counsel also states that her
rate is $243 an hour, which is reasonable given Plaintiff’s counsel’s 16 years of litigation
experience. (See id. at 3:2–3.) That works out to roughly 19 hours of work preparing for and
finalizing the Motion. The Court finds these figures reasonable and just in the context of this
case.
Plaintiff’s counsel also asserts that Plaintiff would incur an additional $1,944 in attorney fees
preparing a reply brief and appearing at the hearing on this Motion. Plaintiff (justifiably)
hasn’t filed a reply brief, and given Defendants’ failure to oppose the Motion, there should
be minimal preparation for the hearing. But Plaintiff’s counsel must still travel to and appear
at the hearing. Accordingly, the Court cuts the $1,944 down to $358.70, equivalent to
approximately an hour and a half of work billed at Plaintiff’s counsel’s rate.
Totaling the $4,641.30 in fees incurred in preparing the Motion and the $358.70 incurred
following the Motion, the Court finds that an attorney fees award of $5000 is reasonable and
just here.
3. DISPOSITION
The Court GRANTS the Motion and awards $5000 in attorney fees.

:
Initials of
Preparer

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 4 of 4

lmb

0