Scevola v. New York Sports and Joints Orthopaedic Specialists PLLC
- George Daniels
- 1:18-cv-05696
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Scevola v. New York Sports, Judge Daniels denied Scevola’s request for fees and costs after removal, finding removal objectively reasonable and records inadequate.
Jo-Ann Scevola was denied reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and costs related to the defendants’ removal of her case. New York Sports and Joints Orthopaedic Specialists PLLC and Kenneth Erik McCulloch were not required to pay those fees and costs.
What happened
In Scevola v. New York Sports and Joints Orthopaedic Specialists PLLC, Jo-Ann Scevola sued the defendants in New York state court over an employment contract and compensation. The defendants removed the case to federal court based on their argument that the claims were governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The federal court later sent the case back to state court, and Scevola requested reimbursement of her attorneys’ fees and costs from the removal.
The court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommendation that the request be denied. It agreed that the defendants had an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal because there was active debate about the scope of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act’s preemption rules, even though the defendants ultimately lost the removal argument. The court also agreed that Scevola’s fee application lacked the required detailed, contemporaneous time records and receipts.
Judge George B. Daniels adopted the recommendation in full and denied Scevola’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion.
The detailed version
- Scevola v. New York Sports and Joints Orthopaedic Specialists PLLC · No. 1:18-cv-05696
- George Daniels
- Nov. 12, 2019
Background
Jo-Ann Scevola brought the underlying action against New York Sports and Joints Orthopaedic Specialists PLLC and Kenneth Erik McCulloch in New York State Supreme Court. The claims concerned an alleged breach of her employment contract and compensation allegedly owed under the New York Labor Law. The defendants removed the case to the Southern District of New York, arguing that the claims for benefits were completely preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, a federal law governing employee-benefit plans.
Scevola moved to send the case back to state court. The court granted that motion on November 20, 2018. The defendants then moved for reconsideration, but the court denied that motion. Scevola later moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred because of the removal.
Review of the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Katherine H. Parker recommended denying the fee motion. No party objected to the recommendation. Because there were no objections, Judge Daniels reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake after reviewing the record. He found no clear error and adopted the recommendation in full.
Reasons for Denial
Under § 1447(c), a court may award costs and actual expenses, including attorneys’ fees, resulting from removal. The court explained that, absent unusual circumstances, fees generally should be awarded only when the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for removal. The court agreed that the defendants’ removal argument was objectively reasonable because there was active debate about the scope of Employee Retirement Income Security Act preemption and its application to particular cases. The fact that the defendants ultimately lost the removal issue did not make their argument objectively unreasonable.
The court also agreed that the fee application was inadequately supported. It stated that counsel had not provided contemporaneous time records or receipts for costs. Such records must identify, for each relevant date, the hours worked and the nature of the work performed.
Disposition
Judge Daniels adopted Magistrate Judge Parker’s Report and Recommendation and denied Scevola’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.