Gondolfo v. Town of Carmel

Background

The six plaintiffs—Jessica Gondolfo, Robert Cavallaro, Todd McCormack, Edward Wechsler, Joseph Armisto, and Gerard Hanrahan—started an Article 78 proceeding in New York state court against the Town Defendants, the Wireless Defendants, and the Maple Hills Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. The state-law case sought to invalidate a federal consent order. The Wireless Defendants removed the case to the Southern District of New York, claiming federal-question jurisdiction.

In a prior order, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to remand, meaning it sent the case back to state court. The court held that the plaintiffs’ state-law claims did not necessarily raise a federal issue and that federal jurisdiction could not be based on a federal preemption defense. The court also rejected the argument that the state case’s connection to a federal order created federal jurisdiction.

After the remand, the plaintiffs moved for attorney’s fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), which permits a court remanding a removed case to award reasonable costs and expenses caused by the removal.

Reasonableness of Removal

The court held that a fee award was appropriate because the Wireless Defendants’ basis for removal was objectively unreasonable. Their arguments focused largely on federal preemption. The court explained that settled law bars removal based on an actual or anticipated federal defense, including preemption. The court also noted that the Wireless Defendants’ additional argument—that the state complaint improperly attacked a federal court order—had previously been rejected by the Supreme Court.

The court stated that bad faith was not required for a fee award. It also evaluated the reasonableness of removal based on the circumstances existing when the case was removed, rather than on events occurring afterward. The court further noted that the removal delayed the state-court proceeding, imposed costs, and used judicial resources. The court found that the timing of the removal, shortly before a scheduled state-court hearing, also suggested gamesmanship, although the court stated that the fee award was appropriate regardless of whether delay was intended.

Amount of the Award

The plaintiffs requested $17,839.50 for 66.7 hours of work. The court used the lodestar method, which calculates a presumptively reasonable fee by multiplying a reasonable hourly rate by the reasonable number of hours worked.

The court agreed that work on the motion to dismiss and the preliminary-injunction motion should not be included because that work would have been necessary even if the case had remained in state court. The court also found that the billing records contained block billing, vague descriptions, and unexplained duplication among attorneys. Instead of reviewing every time entry individually, the court reduced the billed hours related to the remand by 40%.

The resulting award was $396.00 for Alan J. Knauf, $8,614.00 for Jonathan Tantillo, and $1,262.50 for Julia O’Sullivan, for a total of $10,272.50.

Disposition

Judge Seibel granted in part the plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The order states that Defendants shall pay the plaintiffs $10,272.50 and directs the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion.