Camsoft Data Systems, Inc. v. Southern Electronics Supply, Inc. et al

Filing 539

RULING denying in part 504 Motion for Attorney Fees, Expenses and Costs with respect to attorney's fees and referred to the Clerk's Office regarding costs and expenses. Camsoft's 534 Motion for Oral Argument is MOOT. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 2/5/2015. (LLH) Modified on 2/5/2015 to edit text (LLH).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CAMSOFT DATA SYSTEMS, INC.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
NO. 09-1047-JJB
SOUTHERN ELECTRONICS SUPPLY, INC., ET AL.
RULING ON MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES, AND COSTS
This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses, and Costs
(Doc. 504) filed by the plaintiff, Camsoft Data Systems, Inc. (Camsoft). All defendants filed
oppositions, and Camsoft filed a reply. Camsoft also moved for oral argument on the motion.
Background
In 2009, Camsoft sued multiple defendants over a patent dispute. (Doc. 1). Several
defendants filed a notice of removal, which Camsoft challenged. Id.; (Doc. 16). The Magistrate
Judge recommended that the case remain in federal court, and this Court denied Camsoft’s
objection of that recommendation. (Docs. 32, 41). Camsoft then appealed to the Federal Circuit,
which transferred the appeal to the Fifth Circuit. (Doc. 498). While its appeals were pending,
Camsoft filed an amended complaint asserting claims under several federal statutes. (Doc. 205).
In 2014, the Fifth Circuit ruled that there was no subject matter jurisdiction and remanded the
case to state court. (Doc. 530). Camsoft subsequently filed its motion seeking attorneys’ fees,
costs, and expenses. (Doc. 504). After several defendants objected, claiming they did not seek
removal, Camsoft clarified that it was only seeking recovery from the defendants who removed
the case initially. (Doc. 523 at 1). Those remaining defendants are: Southern Electronics Supply,
Inc., Active Solutions LLC, Brian Fitzpatrick, Henry J. Burkhardt, Ignace A. Perrin III, CIBER,
Inc., Dell Inc., Dell Marking, L.P., Steve Renecker, Bill Ridge, Heather Smith, and Mark Kurt.

1
DG

Later, Camsoft moved for oral argument on the motion, and the remaining defendants filed an
opposition to which Camsoft replied. (Docs. 534, 535, 538).
Law
Title 28 U.S.C. §1447(c) provides for “payment of just costs and any actual expenses,
including attorneys’ fees, incurred as a result of improper removal.” Attorneys’ fees are not
automatic. Valdes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 199 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir 2000). Courts consider
the objective “merits of the defendant’s case at time of removal” when determining whether to
award attorneys’ fees, not subjective bad faith. Id. The Court may award attorneys’ fees only
when “the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.” Martin v.
Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005). Courts have also rejected attorneys’ fees
when plaintiff’s “conduct after removal plays a substantial role in causing the case to remain in
federal court.” Avitts v. Amoco Production Co., 111 F.3d 30, 32 (5th Cir. 1997).
Analysis
I.

Attorneys’ Fees

The Court has carefully reviewed all arguments and finds that the defendants’ arguments
are persuasive. The defendants did not lack an objectively reasonable basis for removal, and by
filing multiple claims under federal law, the plaintiffs played a significant role in prolonging the
suit’s stay in federal court. Consequently, the Court will not award attorneys’ fees even though
the Fifth Circuit ultimately found removal improper.
II.

Expenses and Costs

Under Local Rule 54.3, plaintiff should make an application with the Clerk’s Office to
have costs and expenses taxed against the removing defendants.

2

III.

Oral argument

In light of the Court’s ruling on attorneys fees’ and the requirement in Local Rule 54.3 to
make an application with the Clerk’s Office for costs and expenses, Camsoft’s Motion for Oral
Argument is moot.
Conclusion
Camsoft’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses, and Costs (Doc. 504) is DENIED in
part with respect to attorneys’ fees and referred to the Clerk’s Office regarding costs and
expenses. Camsoft’s Motion for Oral Argument (Doc. 534) is MOOT.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on February 5, 2015.





JUDGE JAMES J. BRADY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

3