Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 24, 2025

Pasoon v. Careerist

Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Docket
4:25-cv-05217
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
4
Civil ProcedureFee Petition
In one sentence

In Mirwiss Pasoon v. Careerist, Judge Gilliam remanded the case, awarded $4,840 in fees, and terminated Careerist’s dismissal motion as moot.

Who this affects

Mirwiss Pasoon’s case was returned to state court; Careerist, Inc. was ordered to pay $4,840 in attorneys’ fees, and its motion to dismiss was terminated as moot.

What happened

Mirwiss Pasoon sued Careerist, Inc. and Midwest Fidelity Services, LLC in state court over Careerist’s educational programs and loans. Careerist later moved the case to federal court, claiming federal-question and diversity jurisdiction, but did not obtain Midwest’s consent.

The court ruled that Careerist removed the case too late. It also found the removal objectively unreasonable and awarded Pasoon’s counsel $4,840 in attorneys’ fees. The court did not decide the underlying claims.

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted Pasoon’s motion to remand, sent the case back to the Superior Court of Alameda County, ordered Careerist to pay the fees within 30 days, and terminated Careerist’s motion to dismiss as moot.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Pasoon v. Careerist · No. 4:25-cv-05217
Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Date
Oct. 24, 2025

Background

Mirwiss Pasoon filed the lawsuit in state court in January 2024. The claims involved Careerist’s educational programs and loans and were brought against Careerist, Inc. and Midwest Fidelity Services, LLC. Careerist removed the case to federal court on June 20, 2025, asserting federal-question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. Careerist admitted that it did not obtain Midwest’s consent before removing the case.

Remand ruling

The court granted Pasoon’s motion to remand. Federal law generally requires a defendant to remove a case within 30 days after receiving the initial pleading or another paper showing that the case is removable. The court found that Careerist was served no later than March 7, 2024. If federal-question jurisdiction existed, removal was therefore required within 30 days of service. For diversity jurisdiction, Careerist stated that it knew by March 2025 that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, based on Pasoon’s settlement demand. The court found that Careerist waited about three months after that point before removing the case.

The court also noted that diversity removal generally cannot occur more than one year after the case begins unless the plaintiff acted in bad faith to prevent removal. The court found no evidence of bad faith and noted that Careerist did not argue that Pasoon acted in bad faith. The court rejected Careerist’s argument that the removal period should instead run from May 23, 2025, when Pasoon confirmed that he would not file an amended complaint. The court concluded that the cited cases did not support delaying removal when Careerist acknowledged that removability was evident no later than March 2025.

Attorneys’ fees

The court found Careerist’s removal objectively unreasonable and awarded attorneys’ fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Pasoon requested $4,840 for 8.8 hours of work at an hourly rate of $550. Applying the method that calculates fees by multiplying reasonable hours by a reasonable hourly rate, the court found the requested hours and fees reasonable. Careerist was ordered to pay Pasoon’s counsel $4,840 within 30 days of the order.

Disposition

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted the motion to remand and remanded the case to the Superior Court of Alameda County. Careerist’s motion to dismiss was terminated as moot. The clerk was directed to remand the case and close the file.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.