Roebuck v. American National Insurance Company et al
Filing
30
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying plaintiff's 25 MOTION for Leave to File Documents Under Seal; and denying plaintiff's 26 MOTION for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 5/29/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (cbo)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
SHARON ROEBUCK,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-cv-00650
AMERICAN NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court are the plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees [Docket 26] and the
plaintiff’s Motion for Leave File Documents Under Seal [Docket 25], which requests that the
plaintiff’s counsel be permitted to file its accounting of attorney fees under seal. For the reasons
discussed below, both of these motions are DENIED.
28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) provides that a court remanding a case may “require payment of just
costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of removal.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1447(c). The Supreme Court has held that “absent unusual circumstances, courts may award
attorney’s fees under § 1447(c) only where a party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for
seeking removal.” Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005). “[A]n award of
fees under § 1447(c) is left to the district court’s discretion, with no heavy congressional thumb on
either side of the scales." Id. at 139.
In this case, the defendant had removed the case based on a theory of fraudulent joinder and
also on what the defendant believed to be a federal question. Ultimately, the court rejected the
defendant’s argument and remanded the case to state court. However, the issue of federal
question jurisdiction was fairly raised. In deciding the issue, this court kept in mind a strict
construction of removal jurisdiction. See Md. Stadium Auth. v. Ellerbe Becket, Inc., 407 F.3d
255, 260 (4th Cir. 2005); see also Mulcahey v. Columbia Organic Chems. Co., 29 F.3d 148, 151
(4th Cir. 1994) (AIf federal jurisdiction is doubtful, a remand is necessary.@) The court therefore
FINDS that while the defendants’ arguments in favor of removal were ultimately unpersuasive,
there was an objectively reasonable basis for removing the case. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’
motions are DENIED.
The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented party.
ENTER:
May 29, 2012
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?