Lin v. Amazon.com Services LLC
- Susan Van Keulen
- 5:24-cv-01549
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Lin v. Amazon.com Services LLC, Judge Van Keulen denied Tao Lin’s request for removal costs because Amazon’s removal was not objectively unreasonable.
Tao Lin and Amazon.com Services LLC; the court denied Lin’s request for costs arising from Amazon’s removal of the action.
What happened
Tao Lin, representing himself, sued Amazon.com Services LLC in state court. Amazon removed the case to federal court, claiming diversity jurisdiction. The federal court later sent the case back to state court because Amazon did not provide enough evidence of its state citizenship.
Lin asked Amazon to pay the costs caused by the removal. The court explained that costs may be awarded after remand when the removal lacked an objectively reasonable basis, but an unsuccessful removal is not automatically unreasonable.
The court concluded that Amazon’s failure to provide enough evidence was not an objectively unreasonable attempt to remove the case. Judge Susan Van Keulen therefore denied Lin’s motion for costs.
The detailed version
- Lin v. Amazon.com Services LLC · No. 5:24-cv-01549
- Susan Van Keulen
- Mar. 17, 2025
Background
Tao Lin, who represented himself, began this action in state court. Amazon.com Services LLC removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California based on diversity jurisdiction. On Lin’s request, the court remanded the action to state court because Amazon did not submit evidence showing its state citizenship. The court then considered Lin’s motion for costs incurred because of the removal.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), a court may require payment of reasonable costs and actual expenses, including attorney fees, resulting from removal. The court explained that such an award generally is appropriate when the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for removal. An objectively reasonable basis exists when the law had not clearly foreclosed the removal argument, even if the argument ultimately lacks merit.
Discussion and ruling
The court had previously found that Amazon failed to meet its burden to show that federal subject-matter jurisdiction existed because Amazon offered no evidence that it was a citizen of Washington and relied only on a conclusory statement in its removal notice. But the court stated that this failure was not an erroneous application of settled law. It therefore could not conclude that Amazon’s removal was objectively unreasonable.
The court DENIED Lin’s motion for costs. The order was entered by Susan Van Keulen, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.