Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01900/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01900-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 450
Nature of Suit: Interstate Commerce
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Although the pleading purports to seek costs, in it the Plaintiffs have only requested

attorneys’ fees. 

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Carl J. Minkner, Jr. And Diane M.

Minkner, husband and wife, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Washington Mutual Bank, N.A. et al. , 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-1900-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before this Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion For Fees and Costs (Dkt. # 20)1

 filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). For the reasons stated below that Motion is denied.

As the Supreme Court recently stated “[a]bsent unusual circumstances, courts may

award attorney’s fees under § 1447(c) only where the removing party lacked an objectively

reasonable basis for seeking removal. Conversely when an objectively reasonable basis

exists, fees should be denied.” Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 140-41

(2005). 

In this case, Plaintiffs filed a lengthy and detailed Complaint. It asserted only three

causes of action, the state law claims of (1) breach of contract/injunctive relief, (2) negligent

Case 2:09-cv-01900-GMS Document 26 Filed 03/12/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

misrepresentation, and, (3), fraudulent concealment. As the Court explained in its previous

Order, neither any of these claims, nor the Complaint as a whole, qualifies for the jurisdiction

of this Court. 

Nevertheless, in their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege as an example of fraudulent

concealment that some of the Defendants failed to comply with a qualified written request

for information pursuant to the Federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, (“RESPA”).

See, e.g., Complaint (Dkt. # 1, Ex. 1 at ¶¶ 43-44, 68-69. 146). They allege that this violation

of federal law amounts to fraudulent concealment, and they incorporate the allegations

concerning that violation in each count of their Complaint. Plaintiffs do not, however, bring

a claim for recovery under RESPA. Rather, they assert that this failure to comply with

RESPA constitutes fraud under state law. For the reasons previously explained, in the

estimation of this Court, this allegation does not constitute a federal claim sufficient to grant

this Court jurisdiction. Nevertheless, it does provide the Defendants with an objectively

reasonable basis for seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction over the claim. Therefore, for the

reasons stated in Martin,,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Fees and Costs (Dkt. #

20).

DATED this 12th day of March, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01900-GMS Document 26 Filed 03/12/10 Page 2 of 2