Toothman v. Redwood Toxicology Laboratory
- Edward Chen
- 3:25-cv-02902
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Toothman v. Redwood Toxicology, Judge Chen denied Robert Toothman’s request for removal-related fees because Redwood had an objectively reasonable basis for removal.
Robert Toothman was denied attorney’s fees, and Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, Inc. was not ordered to pay them.
What happened
In Robert Toothman v. Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, Inc., the court had already sent the case back to state court under the discretionary home-state exception to the Class Action Fairness Act. It then asked the parties to address whether Toothman should receive fees for the removal.
Toothman argued that the case’s procedural history suggested Redwood had acted improperly and may not have had a genuine good-faith basis for removing the case. Redwood had presented evidence that nearly one-third of the proposed class members were not citizens, who could not be counted as California citizens for the home-state exception.
Judge Edward Chen denied Toothman’s request for fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The court held that Redwood had an objectively reasonable basis for removal because the remand was based on the discretionary, rather than mandatory, home-state exception.
The detailed version
- Toothman v. Redwood Toxicology Laboratory · No. 3:25-cv-02902
- Edward Chen
- Oct. 22, 2025
Background
The court had previously granted Robert Toothman’s motion to remand under the discretionary home-state exception to the Class Action Fairness Act. Remand sent the case back to the state court from which it had been removed. The court then requested additional briefing on whether Toothman should receive attorney’s fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), a statute that allows a court to award fees in connection with remand.
Arguments and Analysis
The court applied the rule that fees generally may be awarded only when the party that removed the case lacked an objectively reasonable basis for doing so, unless unusual circumstances justify a different result. When an objectively reasonable basis existed, fees should be denied.
Redwood ultimately presented evidence that almost one-third of the proposed class members were not citizens. The court stated that those individuals could not be treated as California citizens for purposes of the home-state exception. Because the court had remanded the case under the discretionary, rather than mandatory, version of that exception, it concluded that Redwood had an objectively reasonable basis for removal.
Toothman argued that the case’s procedural history suggested gamesmanship and that Redwood may not have had a subjective good-faith basis when it removed the case. The court noted that Toothman did not argue that unusual circumstances justified departing from the usual objective-reasonableness standard.
Ruling
Judge Edward Chen declined to award Toothman fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The order therefore denied Toothman’s request for removal-related fees because Redwood had an objectively reasonable basis for removal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.