Jammu Inc. et al v. QFA Royalties LLC et al

Filing 26

ORDER. Plaintiffs' Motion To Remand 18 is GRANTED to the extent the plaintiffs seek remand of this case to state court and is DENIED to the extent the plaintiffs seek an award of attorney fees and costs. This case is REMANDED to the District Court for the City and County of Denver, Colorado (where it was filed originally under Case No. 2012cv7606). By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 2/22/13. (kfinn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 13–cv–00250–REB–KMT
JAMMU INC.,
KARAMBIR JAMMU, and
NIMERTA JAMMU,
Plaintiffs,
v.
QFA ROYALTIES LLC, et al.
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on the plaintiffs’ Motion To Remand [#18]1 filed
February 11, 2013. In his response [#25], the removing defendant, Patrick E. Meyers,
consents to remand of this case. Mr. Meyers reports that all other defendants consent
to remand. Thus, I treat the motion as unopposed.
The plaintiffs seek also an award of attorney fees and costs incurred as a result
of the need to respond to the notice of removal. Such an award is available under 28
U.S.C. § 1447(c). There is a reasonable argument that Mr. Meyers’ notice of removal
was unreasonable. However, having examined the circumstances of this case,
including Mr. Meyers’ recent consent to remand, I conclude that an award of attorney
fees and costs is not merited.
1

“[#18]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the plaintiffs’ Motion To Remand [#18] filed February 11, 2013, is
GRANTED to the extent the plaintiffs seek remand of this case to state court;
2. That the plaintiffs’ Motion To Remand [#18] filed February 11, 2013, is
DENIED to the extent the plaintiffs seek an award of attorney fees and costs;
3. That this case is REMANDED to the District Court for the City and County of
Denver, Colorado (where it was filed originally under Case No. 2012cv7606);
and
4. That the defendants’ Motion To Compel Arbitration and Stay [#13],
Quiznos and Distributor Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay
Proceedings Pending Arbitration [#17], and Defendant McLane Company, Inc.’s
Joinder in Quiznos and Distributor Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration and
Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration [#22] are DENIED as moot.
Dated February 22, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

2