Ball et al v. CSX Transportation, Inc. et al
Filing
30
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER to the extent that the Plaintiff's 22 , 23 , 24 and 25 affidavits explaining costs and expenses incurred can be construed as motions for costs and expenses, they are DENIED. Signed by Judge Robert C. Chambers on 8/22/2014. (cc: attys; any unrepresented parties) (mkw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION
RICHARD DWAYNE BALL, as
Administrator of the Estate of
JACOB DWAYNE BALL, deceased,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-13369
CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.,
a foreign corporation,
CITY OF HURRICANE
a West Virginia political subdivision,
PUTNAM COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION,
a West Virginia political subdivision,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
For the reasons explained below, the Court FINDS that Plaintiff is not entitled to any
costs and expenses incurred in relation to his Motion to Remand. Therefore, to the extent that the
affidavits submitted by Plaintiff explaining costs and expenses incurred, ECF Nos. 22-25, can be
construed as motions for expenses, they are DENIED.
On May 9, 2014, this Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order, ECF No. 19,
which, inter alia, granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. The Court also ordered, in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), that Plaintiff submit within fourteen days of the entry of that
Memorandum Opinion and Order an affidavit specifying costs and expenses incurred as a result
of the removal. Plaintiff timely filed four affidavits—three from attorneys and one from a
paralegal—detailing costs and expenses allegedly incurred relating to the Motion to Remand.
ECF Nos. 22-25. Defendant CSX Transportation, Inc. (“CSX”), filed a Response arguing that no
costs and expenses should be awarded and that, alternatively, the affidavits submitted by Plaintiff
overstated the costs and expenses incurred by Plaintiff. ECF No. 26. Plaintiff filed a Reply. ECF
No. 29. The issue of whether Plaintiff is entitled to costs and expenses is now ripe for resolution.
The Court has discretion to order CSX to pay costs and expenses in connection with the
removal and remand. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (providing, in part, that “[a]n order remanding the case
may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a
result of the removal”). “[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[.]” Martin v. Franklin
Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 139 (2005). “The appropriate test for awarding fees under §
1447(c) should recognize the desire to deter removals sought for the purpose of prolonging
litigation and imposing costs on the opposing party, while not undermining Congress’ basic
decision to afford defendants a right to remove as a general matter, when the statutory criteria are
satisfied.” Id. at 140. In the end, reasonableness is the standard by which the request must be
evaluated. Id. at 141. “Absent unusual circumstances, courts may award attorneys’ fees under §
1447(c) only where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking
removal. Conversely, when an objectively reasonable basis exists, fees should be denied.” Id.
CSX’s removal was premised on the argument that Plaintiff had no possibility of
recovery against Defendants the City of Hurricane (“the City”) and the Putnam County Board of
Education (“the Board”) and that, therefore, those two Defendants had been fraudulently joined.
Without those two Defendants in the case, CSX argued, federal jurisdiction existed. Plaintiff’s
Motion to Remand argued that a possibility of recovery against those two Defendants existed and
that, therefore, federal jurisdiction premised on fraudulent joinder was not proper. The parties’
2
pleadings regarding remand contained considerable argument regarding whether the City and the
Board were protected from suit by immunity and whether the City and the Board owed a duty to
Plaintiff’s decedent. In its Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion to
Remand, the Court noted that the fraudulent joinder standard is more favorable toward Plaintiff
than the standard for dismissal and that, in light of this standard and the arguments presented,
Plaintiff sufficiently presented a possibility of recovery against the City and the Board.
Although the Court’s analysis of the issue of fraudulent joinder was relatively brief, that
brevity should not be taken to mean that CSX’s arguments in favor of federal jurisdiction were
meritless. Neither does the fact that remand was granted mean that CSX presented meritless
arguments concerning federal jurisdiction. CSX believed that the City and the Board had been
fraudulently joined, and in light of CSX’s extensive arguments regarding immunity and the
duties of cities and schools, it appears to the Court that CSX’s belief was objectively reasonable.
Also, its belief was not contrary to clear case law. Furthermore, there is no indication that CSX
had some improper motive or purpose in seeking removal. Therefore, the Court FINDS that
Plaintiff is not entitled to any costs and expenses incurred in relation to his Motion to Remand.1
To the extent that the affidavits submitted by Plaintiff explaining costs and expenses incurred can
be construed as motions for costs and expenses, they are DENIED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this written Opinion and Order to
counsel of record and any unrepresented parties.
ENTER:
1
August 22, 2014
Having made this finding, it is unnecessary for the Court to consider CSX’s alternative
argument that the amount of costs and expenses claimed by Plaintiff is excessive.
3
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?