Izmaylov v. Save Mart Supermarkets et al

Filing 19

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 6/1/2015 DENYING 14 Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees Following Remand. (Kirksey Smith, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
----oo0oo----

11
12

DANIEL IZMAYLOV,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17

SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS, INC.,
a California corporation, and
KENNETH BACA, an Individual
and DOES 1 through 50,
Defendants.

19

----oo0oo----

20

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’
FEES FOLLOWING REMAND

v.

18

21

CIV. NO. 2:15-00323 WBS KJN

Plaintiff Daniel Izmaylov asks this court to exercise
its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) to award him attorneys’
fees following remand of this matter to state court.1
No. 14.)

(Docket

“Absent unusual circumstances, courts may award

attorney’s fees under § 1447(c) only where the removing party
lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.”
Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005).
1

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision
without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g).
1

1

“[W]hen an objectively reasonable basis exists, fees should be

2

denied.”

3

Id.
The court granted plaintiff’s earlier motion to remand

4

on the basis that, despite making several references in his

5

Complaint to the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. §§

6

2601 et seq., plaintiff had not asserted a FMLA claim to support

7

jurisdiction in federal court.

8

the court suggested during oral argument, plaintiff shared

9

responsibility for the mistaken removal by failing to

(See Docket No. 13.)

However, as

10

forthrightly respond to a discovery request seeking to clarify

11

his intended claims.

12

(See Docket No. 16.)

Given those observations, the instant motion is not

13

well received.

14

objectively reasonable because they suggested he might intend to

15

assert a FMLA claim.

16

an award of fees in this case.

17

weigh against granting a fee award.

18

(suggesting that a plaintiff’s “failure to disclose facts

19

necessary to determine jurisdiction” may affect the decision to

20

award attorneys’ fees).

21

Plaintiff’s discovery responses made removal

Moreover, no unusual circumstances justify
If anything, the circumstances
See Martin, 546 U.S. at 141

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for

22

fees following remand be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

23

Dated:

June 1, 2015

24
25
26
27
28
2