Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-05178/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-05178-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Before the Court is Plaintiff Jonathan Behar’s Application for Reimbursement of 

his Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (the “Application”). (Doc. 17) As follows, the application 

will be granted.

On September 13, 2019, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal, removing this 

matter from state to federal court. (Doc. 1) On September 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion 

to Remand (Doc. 12) and on September 24, 2019, Defendants filed a Motion to Withdraw 

the Notice of Removal. (Doc. 13) Following briefing on the issue of removal and remand, 

the Court remanded the matter to state court and ordered Plaintiff to file an application for 

attorneys’ fees and costs related solely to the issue of removal and remand pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1447(c). (Doc. 16 at 3) Plaintiff filed such application (Doc. 17) and Defendants 

responded with several arguments against the application (Doc. 19) to which Plaintiff 

replied (Doc. 21).

The Court has already found that Plaintiff is entitled to recover “just costs and any 

Jonathan Behar, Trustee of the Estate 

of Brandon Truaxe,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Cutter Southwest Aircraft Sales LLC, 

et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-19-05178-PHX-SPL

ORDER

Case 2:19-cv-05178-SPL Document 22 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 3
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

actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1447(c). (Doc. 16 at 2–3) The Court has considered Defendants’ arguments opposing the 

Application and finds they lack merit. It will summarily address those arguments below.

1. Rule 54.2

Local Rule 54.2 applies to applications for attorneys’ fees and related non-taxable 

expenses in this District. There are several exceptions to the application of the rule, and 

one is dispositive of Defendants’ argument on this issue: rule 54.2 does not apply “to claims 

for attorneys’ fees and related non-taxable expenses which may be recoverable as an 

element of damages.” LRCiv 54.2(a). The Court ruled that Plaintiff was entitled to recover 

fees and expenses because the removal was improper, and Defendants lacked an objective 

reasonable basis for removal. (Doc. 16 at 2) The purpose of 28 U.S.C. 1447(c) is to provide 

compensation to the plaintiff when removal was improper, causing plaintiff to incur

attorneys’ fees and related expenses in opposing the removal. It is a deterrent for improper 

removals. Awarding the attorneys’ fees and related non-taxable expenses is therefore an 

element of damages created to make plaintiff whole. Accordingly, Local Rule of Civil 

Procedure 54.2 is not applicable to Plaintiff’s Application.

2. Pro Hac Vice Admissions and Recovery of Fees

Defendants next argue that the fees charged by Plaintiff’s California attorneys from 

Pepper Hamilton, LLP cannot be recovered because “decisional law is clear that fees are 

not recoverable under the circumstances where fees are claimed by firms which are not 

counsel of record, as here.” (Doc. 19 at 4–5) The Court does not find this argument 

persuasive. Indeed, the two Pepper Hamilton attorneys who submitted fees as part of the 

application were admitted pro hac vice by the Court on October 24, 2019. Furthermore, 

the cases cited by Defendants involved attorneys who were never admitted at all, pro hac 

vice or otherwise, and some of them were not even in good standing in their original 

jurisdiction of practice. This is not the case here as the Pepper Hamilton’s attorneys 

complied with all requirements to be admitted pro hac vice by the Court and were so 

admitted. Accordingly, the Court finds that their fees are recoverable by Plaintiff.

Case 2:19-cv-05178-SPL Document 22 Filed 03/27/20 Page 2 of 3
3

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

3. Reasonableness of fees

Defendants’ counsel finally argue that the whole process of fighting the removal

should have taken Plaintiff’s counsel four hours and that Defendants bill $315.00 per hour 

for partners which means that the fee award should be $1,260. (Doc. 19 at 5) The Court 

finds this argument unpersuasive and odd. It is true that one basis for the award calculation 

is the hourly rate charged by attorneys and whether it is reasonable taking into account 

various factors such as experience and location of practice. The fact that Defendants’ 

attorneys bill at this rate does not negate that the hourly rates set forth by Plaintiff’s 

counsels are reasonable. There is no rule that the rates should be equal or set by what 

defense counsel bills. The Court finds that the hourly rate charged by Plaintiff’s counsel 

are reasonable. Furthermore, the Pepper Hamilton attorneys are based on California where 

rates are substantially higher than Arizona. Having reviewed the parties’ filings, the Court 

concludes that $14,123.35 is the total amount of fees and costs incurred as a result of 

removal. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Application for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

(Doc. 17) is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Jonathan Behar is awarded $14,077.00 in fees 

and $46.35 in costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this case.

Dated this 26th day of March, 2020.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Case 2:19-cv-05178-SPL Document 22 Filed 03/27/20 Page 3 of 3