SOUTHERN MARSH COLLECTION LLC v SOUTHERN FOWLER COMPANY LLC
ORDER granting 8 Motion to Remand. This case is remanded to the Eighteenth Judicial District Court in the Parrish of Iberville, Louisiana. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE HUGH LAWSON on 2/8/2018. (aks)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SOUTHERN MARSH COLLECTION,
Civil Action No. 7:17-CV-157 (HL)
SOUTHERN FOWLER COMPANY,
LLC, and JOSEPH HEWETT,
This case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. (Doc. 8).
Following oral arguments on February 1, 2018, the Court remanded the case to
the state court in Louisiana. This order memorializes the Court’s oral ruling.
Plaintiff initially filed this action against Defendants in the Eighteenth Judicial
District Court in the Parrish of Iberville, Louisiana on August 17, 2017. Plaintiff’s
complaint includes allegations of unfair trade practices under Louisiana state law
and seeks both monetary and injunctive relief. Defendant removed the case to this
Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446 on September 13, 2017, and
asserted that this Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331. (Doc. 3).
Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to state court on October 12, 2017,
contending Defendants’ Notice of Removal is procedurally defective as the District
Court for the Middle District of Louisiana is the only court Defendants could have
removed the action to. (Doc. 8).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a party may remove “any civil action
brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have
original jurisdiction . . . to the district court of the United States for the district and
division embracing the place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
The “place” is “the site of the state court in which the action is pending at the time
the notice of removal is filed.” Cogdell v. Wyeth, 366 F.3d 1245, 1248 n.7 (11th
Defendants removed this case on the basis of federal question jurisdiction.
Mainly, Defendants argue that there “is a substantial federal question regarding
the jurisdiction of the Louisiana State Court over these Defendants and that only
this Court is a suitable forum for deciding these issues.” (Doc. 12, p. 9). Defendants
maintain that the Plaintiff’s suit filed in state court in Louisiana is a violation of due
process rights because there is an insufficient nexus between the Defendants’
conduct and the state court in Louisiana.
However, Eleventh Circuit precedent plainly states that “§ 1441(a)
establishes federal venue in the district where the state action was pending, and it
is immaterial that venue was improper under state law when the action was
originally filed.” Hollis v. Florida State University, 259 F.3d 1295, 1300 (11th Cir.
2001). At the time Defendants filed their notice of removal, this case was pending
in state court in Louisiana. Thus, the only court Defendants could have properly
removed the action to is the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Louisiana—the federal district court within the district and division embracing the
Louisiana State Court where the action originated. As Defendants’ have improperly
removed the case to this Court, Plaintiff’s motion to remand must be granted.
Plaintiff seeks an award of attorney fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). (Doc.
8-1, pp. 17-18). Whether to award attorney fees in remand motions is a
discretionary matter. Graham Commercial Realty, Inc. v. Shamsi, 75 F. Supp. 2d
1371, 1373 (N.D. Ga. 1998). Although Defendants’ removal is improper, the Court
has determined that Defendant’s attempt at removal was not “so lacking as to
justify… an award.” Sapp v. AT&T Corp., 215 F. Supp. 2d 1273, 1279 (M.D. Ala.
2002). Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees accordingly is denied.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 8) is granted.
SO ORDERED, this 8th day of February, 2018.
s/ Hugh Lawson_______________
HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE
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?