Battle Creek State Bank v. RC Ventures, LLC et al
Filing
29
ORDER by Judge James Donato granting 20 Motion to Remand; denying 22 Motion for Attorney Fees. (jdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/7/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
BATTLE CREEK STATE BANK,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Case No.16-cv-04984-JD
ORDER REMANDING CASE AND
DENYING FEES
v.
RC VENTURES, LLC, et al.,
Re: Dkt. Nos. 20, 22
Defendants.
In this removed action, plaintiff Battle Creek State Bank has filed a motion to remand,
13
which is not opposed by either the removing party, Markou, LLC, or any of the other defendants
14
who previously consented to the removal. Dkt. Nos. 20, 25. The parties consequently are in
15
agreement that the case should be remanded back to state court. Based on this agreement and
16
because the Court finds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) that the case was removed improvidently
17
and without jurisdiction, the Court orders the action remanded to the Superior Court of the State of
18
California in and for the County of Marin.
19
Plaintiff has also filed a motion for attorney fees and costs, Dkt. No. 22, which is opposed.
20
An award of fees and costs in a remand order under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) is not automatic, and is
21
instead left to the district court’s discretion. Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 139
22
(2005). This case presents somewhat of a close question, but the Court finds that fees and costs
23
are not warranted under the standard set out in Martin, 546 U.S. 141. Plaintiffs’ fees and costs
24
motion is denied.
25
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 7, 2016
27
28
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?