ACR Dealer Funding, LLC v. Auto Brokers USA Corp. et al
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM OPINION signed by Senior Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 7/24/2017, re Plaintiff's 10 MOTION for Attorney Fees. cc: Counsel (RLK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
ACR DEALER FUNDING, L.L.C.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-cv-00083-CRS
v.
AUTO BROKERS USA CORP., a Florida
Corporation, ASHLEY A. TALAVERA,
ADELFO GIZ, and RIGOBERTO IVAN
PEREZ
DEFENDANT
Memorandum Opinion
I.
Introduction
This matter is before the Court on the motion of Plaintiff ACR Dealer Funding, L.L.C.
(“Plaintiff”) for an entry of an order awarding costs and attorney fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c),
ECF No. 10. Defendants Auto Brokers USA Corp., Ashley A. Talavera, and Adelpho Giz
(collectively, “Defendants”) responded, ECF No. 11. Plaintiff replied, ECF No. 12. For the
reasons explained below, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for an award of costs and
attorney fees.
II.
Background
Plaintiff filed its original complaint against Defendants in the Hardin County, Kentucky
Circuit Court on August 26, 2016. Compl. 1, ECF No. 5-1. The body of the original complaint
identified Plaintiff as “ACR Dealer Funding, L.L.C.” Id. at 2. But the caption of the original
complaint identified Plaintiff as “ACR of South Florida, L.L.C.” Id. at 1. On January 18, 2017,
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the Hardin County Circuit Court. Am. Compl. 1, ECF No. 52. In relevant part, the amended complaint changed the identification of Plaintiff in the caption to
“ACR Dealer Funding, L.L.C.” Id.
1
Defendants filed a notice of removal on February 10, 2017. Not. Removal 1, ECF No. 1.
On February 28, 2017, Plaintiff moved to remand the case to the Hardin County Circuit Court.
Mot. Remand 1, ECF No. 5. Plaintiff argued that Defendants had failed to timely remove the
case to this Court within thirty days of receiving the complaint, as is required by 28 U.S.C. §
1446(b)(1). Id.
As explained by the Court in its memorandum opinion, Defendants did not contest that a
case must be removed to federal court within the thirty-day window. Mem. Op. 4/19/2017 2,
ECF No. 8. Instead, Defendants appeared to invoke the “revival exception” to the thirty-day
window. Id. Defendants maintained that their notice of removal was timely because the time to
remove began anew when the amended complaint—which identified “ACR Dealer Funding,
L.L.C.” as the plaintiff—was filed. Id.
This Court determined that Defendants had untimely removed the case to federal court.
Id. at 3. Additionally, the revival exception did not excuse Defendants’ untimely removal
because the amended complaint did not “affect the nature of the action such that a substantially
new suit began.” Id. Thus, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to the Hardin
County Circuit Court. Order 4/19/2017 1, ECF No. 9.
III.
Discussion
Plaintiff now seeks an award of costs and attorney fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) for
sums that were incurred as a result of Defendant’s removal to federal court. Mot. Costs & Fees 1,
ECF No. 10. Plaintiff asserts that it is entitled to an award of costs and attorney fees because
Defendants’ removal notice was objectively unreasonable. Id. at 2–3. Defendants argue in
opposition that “an objectively reasonable basis existed for believing the removal was
appropriate” because they “reasonably believed that the filing of the Amended Complaint was
2
the ‘initial pleading’ under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) which triggered the start of the thirty (30)
removal period” and because other jurisdictions have adopted the “revival exception” to the
thirty-day removal window. Resp. Opp. Mot. Cost & Fees 1–5, ECF No. 11.
28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) permits the court, after remanding a case to state court, to award
“just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees” that were incurred as a result of the
removal. The Supreme Court has instructed that fee awards are appropriate only when “the
removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.” Martin v. Franklin
Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005). The Sixth Circuit has likewise explained that “an
award of costs, including attorney fees, is inappropriate where the defendant's attempt to remove
the action was ‘fairly supportable,’ or where there has not been at least some finding of fault with
the defendant's decision to remove.” Warthman v. Genoa Twp. Bd. of Trs., 549 F.3d 1055, 1059–
60 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Bartholomew v. Town of Collierville, 409 F.3d 684, 687 (6th Cir.
2005)).
Here, Defendants’ attempt to remove the action to federal court was fairly supportable.
Kentucky Civil Rule 10.01 requires that the plaintiff list “the names of all the parties” in the
complaint’s “style of the action.” Defendants’ argument that the identification in the caption of the
original complaint of Plaintiff as “ACR of South Florida, L.L.C.” meant that ACR of South Florida,
L.L.C. was the sole and correct plaintiff was objectively reasonable. Moreover, Defendants’ revival
exception argument was objectively reasonable because some jurisdictions have adopted the “revival
exception” to the thirty-day removal window, see, e.g., Wilson v. Intercollegiate (Big Ten)
Conference, 668 F.2d 962, 965 (7th Cir. 1982), and Defendants could reasonably have believed that
changing the identification of the plaintiff in the caption of the complaint also substantially changed
the nature of the action. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for an award of costs and attorney fees will
be denied.
3
IV.
Conclusion
The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for an award of costs and attorney fees under 28
U.S.C. § 1447(c). An order will be issued in accordance with this memorandum opinion.
July 24, 2017
C al R Smpo I , ei J d e
h r s . i sn I Sno u g
e
I
r
U i dSae Ds i C ut
nt tt ir t o r
e
s tc
4
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?