Malgesini v. Malley
- Edward Davila
- 5:20-cv-07002
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Malgesini v. Malley, Judge Davila awarded Malgesini $16,880 in attorneys’ fees after finding Malley’s removal improper.
Thomas Malgesini received an award of $16,880 in attorneys’ fees from Gregory Malley based on the improper removal of Malgesini’s state-court action.
What happened
In Malgesini v. Malley, Thomas Malgesini sued Gregory Malley in California state court over a written agreement. Malley moved the case to federal court, arguing it was connected to another federal lawsuit. The federal court later sent the case back to state court.
Malgesini then sought reimbursement for the expenses caused by the removal. The court found that Malley had no objectively reasonable basis for removing the case because federal supplemental jurisdiction does not itself provide a basis for removal, and Malgesini’s complaint raised only a state-law claim.
The court granted Malgesini’s motion for attorneys’ fees and awarded $16,880. Judge Edward J. Davila found that amount reasonable based on the litigation generated, counsel’s experience, and the work required to show that removal was improper.
The detailed version
- Malgesini v. Malley · No. 5:20-cv-07002
- Edward Davila
- Mar. 24, 2022
Background
Thomas Malgesini moved for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred after Gregory Malley removed Malgesini’s state-court action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Malgesini’s state-court complaint alleged one California state-law claim for breach of a written agreement.
Malley had previously sued San Jose Midtown Development LLC and its members, including Malgesini, in a separate federal action. That action asserted fifteen causes of action and relied on the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act as its only basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction. While a motion to dismiss was pending in that action, Malgesini filed the state-court case against Malley. Malley removed it under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), arguing that the state-court case was effectively a compulsory counterclaim related to the federal action.
The court related the cases. Malgesini moved to send the removed case back to state court, and on April 8, 2021, the court granted that motion and directed Malgesini to request reimbursement of removal-related costs and expenses.
Fee request
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), an order sending a case back to state court may require payment of reasonable costs and actual expenses, including attorneys’ fees, caused by the removal. The court stated that Malley had no objectively reasonable basis for removal. It relied on Ninth Circuit precedent holding that supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367 is not itself a basis for removal. Because Malgesini’s complaint contained only a state-law claim and no federal claim supporting removal, the court found an award of fees proper.
Malgesini requested $16,880 in attorneys’ fees and costs. The requested billing rates were $400 per hour for attorney Daniel S. Cornell and $200 per hour for Cornell’s third-year associate, Gurjit Singh. Malley did not challenge the amount; he argued instead that the fee award was improper because he believed the removal had an objectively reasonable basis.
Reasonableness of the amount
The court used the lodestar method, which generally calculates a reasonable fee by multiplying the reasonable hours worked by a reasonable hourly rate. The court considered the litigation generated by Malley, including motions to dismiss and strike and requests for production, as well as counsel’s experience and skill and the effort required to establish that removal was improper. It found the $16,880 award reasonable.
Disposition
The court GRANTS Malgesini’s motion for attorneys’ fees and awards attorneys’ fees in the amount of $16,880.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.