Summary
This order addresses a pro se plaintiff's motion for costs incurred during the removal of this case from state to federal court and subsequent remand. Applying 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) and Ninth Circuit precedent, the court evaluates whether the defendant's removal lacked an objectively reasonable basis. Finding that the defendant merely failed to provide sufficient evidence of diversity jurisdiction rather than misapplying settled law, the court concludes the removal was not objectively unreasonable. Accordingly, the court denies the plaintiff's motion for costs.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the court may award costs under 28 U.S.C. §1447(c) when the removal was not objectively unreasonable
- Whether Defendant's removal was objectively unreasonable.
Holdings
- A court may award costs under §1447(c) only when the removing party's removal was objectively unreasonable; because Amazon's removal was not objectively unreasonable, the motion for costs is denied.
Key quotations
““Removal is not objectively unreasonable solely because the removing party’s arguments lack merit . . . .””
““May require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.””
Factual background
Plaintiff initiated a state‑court action. Defendant removed the case to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction but failed to submit evidence of its Washington citizenship. The district court remanded the case for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed in state court; Defendant removed to federal court on diversity grounds; Court remanded for lack of evidence of Defendant's citizenship; Plaintiff then moved for costs under 28 U.S.C. §1447(c).