Haw v. Howard

Filing 13

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES 8 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 3/18/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

No. C 13-357 SI
Related case: C 12-5167 SI

JEFFREY HAW,
Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES

v.
JOHN HOWARD,

13

Defendant.

/

14
15

Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees is scheduled for a hearing on March 22, 2013. Defendant

16

has not filed an opposition to the motion. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that

17

the matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument, and VACATES the hearing. For the

18

reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion and awards plaintiff $3,172 in attorney’s

19

fees.

20
21

DISCUSSION

22

On December 13, 2012, this Court remanded Haw v. Howard, C 12-5167 SI (Alameda County

23

Superior Court Case No. RG 12646031), to state court, finding that this Court lacked jurisdiction over

24

that unlawful detainer case. The Court denied plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees incurred in

25

connection with the improper removal.

26

On January 25, 2013, defendant again removed the same unlawful detainer action, Haw v.

27

Howard, C 13-357 SI (Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG 12646031), asserting the same

28

defective grounds for jurisdiction that defendant previously asserted in C 12-5167 SI. Compare Docket

1

No. 1 in C 12-5167 SI and Docket No. No. 1 in C 13-357 SI. In an order filed February 12, 2013, the

2

Court remanded this case to state court.

3

On February 12, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for attorney’s fees. Plaintiff seeks $3,172 in

4

attorney’s fees incurred in connection with the second improper removal. Plaintiff’s lawyer has

5

submitted a declaration stating that he spent 12.2 hours at a rate of $260 an hour researching and

6

preparing the notice of motion of related case, and the notice and motion to remand. Tubman Decl. ¶ 9.

7

Counsel states that he practices almost exclusively in state court, and that he required time to become

8

familiar with the federal rules. Defendant’s opposition to the fee motion was due March 8, 2013, and

9

defendant did not file an opposition.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Courts may award attorney’s fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) “where the removing party lacked

11

an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.” Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132,

12

141 (2005).1 The Court finds that defendant lacked an objectively reasonable basis for removing this

13

unlawful detainer action because defendant asserted the same improper bases for removal in the second

14

removal that the Court had already found insufficient for the first removal. Cf. Knudsen v. Liberty Mut.

15

Ins. Co., 435 F.3d 755, 757 (7th Cir. 2006) (stating that “[a] second removal is proper when based on

16

a new development”). Accordingly, the Court finds it appropriate to award plaintiff attorney’s fees, and

17

GRANTS plaintiff’s motion.

18

This order resolves Docket No. 8.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

Dated: March 18, 2013
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
1

27
28

Attorney’s fees may be awarded in an order to remand or anytime thereafter. Moore v.
Permanente Medical Group. Inc., 981 F.2d 443, 445 (9th Cir. 1992) (concluding that “an award of
attorney’s fees is a collateral matter over which a court normally retains jurisdiction even after being
divested of jurisdiction on the merits”).
2