Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-02831/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-02831-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TELITHA BALL, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

ET AL.,

Defendants. /

No. C 08-02831 MHP

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Re: Motion to Remand; Motion for

Attorneys’ Fees

Plaintiffs filed the instant action in the California Superior Court for the County of San

Francisco on February 20, 2008. Certain defendants, including the City and County of San

Francisco, removed the action to this court on June 6, 2008 based on an erroneous belief that they

were the only defendants to have been served the summons and complaint. The removing

defendants believed so because, as of the date of removal, none of the individual defendants, who

are police officers in the San Francisco Police Department, had informed their legal department that

they had been served a summons and complaint in this action. In spite of repeated communications

between the parties after the removal, plaintiffs’ counsel did not inform defendants’ counsel until

June 19, 2008 that another defendant, Lieutenant Fernando, had also been served. Bliss Dec, ¶¶ 3–5,

Exh. D. The timing of this disclosure seems to be designed to cause a procedural flaw in

defendants’ removal. Specifically, Lieutenant Fernando was served on May 18, 2008 and although

plaintiffs were aware of this fact, they nevertheless failed to file a proof of service or inform the

removing defendants until June 19, 2008, one day after the thirty-day limit for Lieutenant Fernando

Case 3:08-cv-02831-MHP Document 15 Filed 08/01/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

to remove the action to this court. When defendants were made aware that Lieutenant Fernando had

also been served, they agreed to stipulate to the remand. Id., Exhs. E & F. Thereafter, the parties

were unable to reach an agreement as to the terms of the stipulation. The court finds nothing

unreasonable about defendants’ behavior and consequently, finds no basis for an award of attorneys’

fees under 28 U.S.C. section 1447(c). See Martin v. Franklin Capitol Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141

(2005) (“when an objectively reasonable basis exists [for removal], [attorneys’] fees should be

denied.”). Plaintiffs citation to Romano v. Bible, 169 F.3d 1182, 1186 (9th Cir. 1999), is

inapposite—it speaks to absolute immunity for governmental agents, not reasonableness of removal

or attorneys’ fees.

Since the parties were unable to agree upon the stipulation regarding remand, plaintiffs filed

a motion to remand on July 3, 2008. See Docket No. 10. Plaintiffs now seek attorneys’ fees

associated with the motion to remand. They argue that they were forced to file a motion to remand

because defendants unreasonably failed to stipulate to the remand. However, it was plaintiffs that

stopped responding to defendants’ e-mails regarding the stipulation. Id., Exh. F. The court has

reviewed the proposed stipulation and finds nothing unreasonable about defendants’ positions or the

draft stipulation. Id., Exhs. E & F. Plaintiffs’ insistence that three of their demands be addressed in

the stipulation to remand are what caused the breakdown in communications. Id., Exh. F. Indeed, it

was plaintiffs that refused to respond after June 27, 2008. Further, defendants’ unreasonable

behavior, if any, with respect to the stipulation does not affect whether they were unreasonable when

initially removing the action to this court.

In sum, the motion to remand is GRANTED and the motion for attorneys’ fees is DENIED.

The Clerk of Court shall transmit forthwith a certified copy of this order to the Clerk of the Superior

Court for the County of San Francisco. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 31, 2008 

MARILYN HALL PATEL

United States District Court Judge

Northern District of California

Case 3:08-cv-02831-MHP Document 15 Filed 08/01/08 Page 2 of 2