CollegeStreet Import & Export Co. Ltd. v. XL x HF LLC
- Alex Tse
- 3:23-cv-02303
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In CollegeStreet Import & Export v. XL x HF, Judge Tse denied attorney’s fees after remanding the contract case for lack of federal jurisdiction.
CollegeStreet Import & Export (Tianjin) Co. Ltd.’s request for attorney’s fees was denied; the order addressed fees arising from the remand of the action and did not decide the underlying breach-of-contract dispute.
What happened
CollegeStreet Import & Export (Tianjin) Co. Ltd. sued XL x HF LLC and others in a breach-of-contract case that was removed to federal court. The court later sent the case back to state court because complete diversity between the parties was lacking.
CollegeStreet then asked for attorney’s fees under the federal remand statute, claiming the defendants improperly removed the case. The court noted that CollegeStreet had not challenged the removal and that some of the fees appeared to involve opposing a motion to dismiss, rather than opposing removal.
Judge Alex Tse denied CollegeStreet’s motion for attorney’s fees. The court exercised its discretion and concluded that fees were not warranted under the circumstances.
The detailed version
- CollegeStreet Import & Export Co. Ltd. v. XL x HF LLC · No. 3:23-cv-02303
- Alex Tse
- Sept. 6, 2023
Background
This order concerns only CollegeStreet Import & Export (Tianjin) Co. Ltd.’s request for attorney’s fees. The underlying case was a breach-of-contract action that defendants removed from Alameda County Superior Court to federal court. On August 23, 2023, the court raised on its own the question whether complete diversity existed under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and remanded the action to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Two days later, CollegeStreet moved for attorney’s fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), which allows a court, in its discretion, to award costs and actual expenses caused by an improper removal.
Parties’ Positions
CollegeStreet claimed that it spent at least some amount on opposing the defendants’ improper removal and argued that the defendants removed the case in bad faith. The court observed, however, that the fees identified by CollegeStreet appeared to have been incurred in connection with opposing defendants’ motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), rather than in opposing removal.
The court also noted that CollegeStreet never moved to remand or otherwise challenged the removal before the court remanded the case on its own. Instead, after removal, CollegeStreet filed an amended complaint and a motion for a writ of attachment that described the case as a diversity case governed by California law.
Ruling
Judge Alex Tse denied the motion for attorney’s fees. The court relied on the rule that fees under § 1447(c) ordinarily are available only when the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for removal, absent unusual circumstances. The court exercised its discretion and found that fees were not warranted here. The court characterized CollegeStreet’s effort to claim fees for opposing an allegedly improper removal, despite not challenging the removal, as without merit.
Disposition
The plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees was denied. The order did not award fees or costs under § 1447(c).
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.