Branson et al v. Mestre et al
Filing
32
MEMORANDUM ORDER re 30 MOTION to Modify the Order Which Awarded Attorney's Fees filed by Lee Mestre is DENIED. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 3/28/19. (ntl)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ALBERT E. BRANSON, DAYID J. BRANSON,
AND ROBERT J. BRANSON
Plaintiffs,
C.A. No. 17-207-LPS
V.
LEE MESTRE, VINCENT BRANSON, and
10 NORTH FOURTH STREET TRUST, and
JOHN DOES 1-20, INCLUSIVE and ALL
UNKNOWN OWNERS OR CLAIMANTS OF
PROPERTY LOCATED AT SOUTH BETHANY/ :
OCEAN HIGHWAY, LOT 39, BLK 1 N. ADD,
INDIAN RIVER HUNDRED, SUSSEX COUNTY, :
DELAWARE TMP No . 134-17.20-199.00
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant Lee Mestre' s ("Defendant" or "Mestre") pro se
motion to modify the order awarding attorney fees . (D.I. 30) On July 27, 2017, Magistrate
Judge Sherry Fallon issued a Report and Recommendation granting Plaintiffs Albert Branson,
David Branson, and Robert Branson's (collectively "Plaintiffs") motion to remand and granting
Plaintiffs' request for attorney fees. (D.I. 26) ("Report") The facts of this case are described in
detail in Judge Fallon' s Memorandum Opinion of June 16, 2017 (D.I. 17) and her subsequent
Report (D.I. 26). No objections to the Report were filed and the Court adopted it on March 2,
2018 . (D.I. 29) Mestre filed the present motion on March 22, 2018, seeking to modify the fee
award by imposing it on Defendant 10 North Fourth Street Trust, of which Mestre is a member,
rather against Mestre personally. (D.I. 30) Plaintiffs oppose the motion. (D.I. 31)
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1
1.
Defendant's motion (D.I. 30) is DENIED.
2.
Mestre argues that the fee award should be only imposed on the trust because
"Delaware courts assess counsel fees against a trustee individually only when the conduct at
issue constitutes gross negligence." (D.I. 30 at 125) He adds that " [i]t would be manifestly
unjust for personal liability to be imposed against either defendant." (Id. at 126)
3.
Mestre's trust law arguments are inapposite. Fees were awarded pursuant to the
federal removal statute, 28 U.S.C. ยง 1447(c), not Delaware trust law. Section 1447(c) provides:
"[a]n order remanding the case may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses,
including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal." "[A] district court has broad
discretion and may be flexible in determining whether to require the payment of fees under
section 1447(c)." (Report at 12) (quoting Mints v. Educational Testing Serv., 99 F.3d 1253,
1260 (3d Cir. 1996)) Here, the fee was awarded because "the removing party" - that is, Mestre
- "lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal" (id.) (quoting Martin v. Franklin
Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005)), a finding Mestre does not challenge. (See D.I. 1 at 2)
("Defendant Lee Mestre ('Mestre'), with the consent of Defendant, Vincent Branson,
(collectively ' Defendants'), files this Notice of Removal and hereby removes this action.")
March 28, 2019
Wilmington, Delaware
HONORABLELEONARDP.STARK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?