Onisko & Scholz, LLP, Paul Scholz, and Cindy Schoelen, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. B.S.D. Capital, Inc., d/b/a Lendistry

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) after remanding the putative class action to state court. The Court held that Defendant lacked an objectively reasonable basis for removal under the Class Action Fairness Act because it failed to provide evidence establishing minimal diversity. The Court also found the fee motion timely and determined that Plaintiffs’ counsel’s requested hourly rates were reasonable.

Holdings

1. The motion was not a motion for reconsideration because the Court had not previously expressly ruled on Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees.
2. The motion was timely.
3. Plaintiffs were entitled to attorneys' fees because Lendistry lacked an objectively reasonable basis for removal.
4. Plaintiffs were entitled to $26,520 in attorneys' fees, calculated using 31.2 attorney hours and no paralegal hours.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees was an improper motion for reconsideration of the remand order.
2. Whether Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees was timely under the applicable federal rules, local rules, and the Court's Civil Standing Order.
3. Whether Lendistry lacked an objectively reasonable basis for removing the action under CAFA, thereby entitling Plaintiffs to fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
4. What amount of attorneys' fees was reasonable under the lodestar method.

Disposition

other