Minn v. Allianz Asset Management of America L.P. et al

Filing 23

ORDER denying motion for attorneys' fees, remanding case, and vacating hearing. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 7/8/2014. (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/8/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

SEUNG MINN,
Plaintiff,

8
9

ALLIANZ ASSET MANAGEMENT OF
AMERICA L.P., et al.,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS’ FEES, REMANDING
CASE, AND VACATING HEARING

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

v.

No. C 14-2220 PJH

12

Defendants.
_______________________________/

13

Before the court is plaintiff’s motion to remand and for attorneys’ fees and costs.

14

The parties have filed a stipulation indicating that they have now agreed to remand the

15

case to state court. The parties also request that this court “retain[] jurisdiction over

16

plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees.” Instead, the court will address both the motion to

17

remand and the motion for attorneys’ fees in this order.

18

As to the motion to remand, the parties jointly request that the case be remanded,

19

and the court hereby grants the request, and REMANDS the case to state court. The court

20

will separately enter the stipulation submitted by the parties.

21

As to the motion for attorneys’ fees, in order to establish entitlement to fees, plaintiff

22

must show that defendants “lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.”

23

Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005). While the court finds that

24

defendants’ argument for removal was weak, it does not agree with plaintiff that it “lacked

25

an objectively reasonable basis.” The parties agree, and indeed, this court has noted that

26

“[t]he Ninth Circuit has not spoken on the issue.” In re Segovia, 404 B.R. 896, 917 (N.D.

27

Cal. 2009). In the absence of any Ninth Circuit authority, the court cannot find that

28

defendants acted unreasonably in seeking to remove this case. Thus, plaintiff’s motion for

1
2
3
4
5

attorneys’ fees is DENIED.
Finally, the court VACATES the July 9, 2014 hearing scheduled on the motions, in
part to avoid the incurrence of additional attorneys’ fees.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 8, 2014
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2