WANNA v. HEALTH SERVICES OF CENTRAL GEORGIA INC et al

Filing 33

ORDER denying 30 Motion for Attorney Fees. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE TILMAN E SELF, III on 8/13/2018. (chc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
FADY S. WANNA,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION NO.

v.

5:18-cv-00189-TES

HEALTH SERVICES OF CENTRAL
GEORGIA, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
______________________________________________________________________________
On July 16, 2018, the Court entered an Order [Doc. 28] granting Plaintiff’s Motion
to Remand [Doc. 3]. Plaintiff now moves the Court for an award of attorney’s fees
incurred during the pendency of this action.
28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) provides that “[a]n order remanding the case may require
payment of costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of
removal.” The Court may only award attorney’s fees pursuant to Section 1447(c) if the
party who removed the action “lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking
removal.” Taylor Newman Cabinetry, Inc. v. Classic Soft Trim, Inc., 436 F. App’x 888, 890
(11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005)). This
standard does not require the Court to find that the removing party’s position was
“frivolous . . . or without foundation.” Id. However, the statute’s use of “may” denotes

that the Court is not required to award attorney’s fees and may exercise its discretion in
denying a motion under Section 1447(c). See Martin, 546 U.S. at 136.
In this case, Defendants had an objectively reasonable basis for removing this
action: ERISA completely preempted Plaintiff’s claims and afforded the Court
jurisdiction over the matter. ERISA preemption is a complicated area of law that requires
the Court and parties to a conduct a multistep test to determine if and when the plaintiff’s
claims give rise to an ERISA claim. Defendants’ only fault, however, was failing to
remove within a timely manner. Defendants presented plausible arguments about the
date from which the time to remove could have run, and the Court’s decision depended
on its analysis of ERISA preemption and at what point Defendants should have known
that Plaintiff’s claims were preempted. In sum, the Court finds that Defendants’
arguments—though ultimately unaccepted—were objectively reasonable given the
complexities of the arguments and claims in this particular case. Accordingly, the Court
DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees [Doc. 30].
SO ORDERED, this 13th day of August.

S/ Tilman E. Self, III
TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT