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)

Download PDF
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

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?