Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01206/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01206-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 12:1725 Collection under Contract Guaranty

---

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

New England Technology Finance, LLC,

a Delaware limited liability company, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Enterprise Resource Procurement, LLC,

an Arizona limited liability company, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV08-1206-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed an Emergency Motion to Remand and Motion for Sanctions;

Temporary Restraining Order; Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. Dkt. #6. Defendant has also filed

a motion for remand. Dkt. #8. Plaintiff has filed a response to Defendant’s motion. Dkt. #9.

The parties agree that this case was improperly removed from state court. Actions

based on diversity jurisdiction may be removed to federal court “only if none of the parties

in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such

action is brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Defendant is an Arizona citizen for purposes of

diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. ##6, 8. Given the parties’ agreement on this issue, and the fact

that courts strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction, Gaus v. Miles,

Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992), the Court will remand this case to state court. 

Plaintiff also seeks sanctions. First, Plaintiff asks the Court to require Defendant to

pay the costs and attorneys’ fees incurred by Plaintiff as a result of the improper removal.

The removal statute provides that a district court may require payment of costs and attorneys’

Case 2:08-cv-01206-DGC Document 10 Filed 07/02/08 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

fees incurred because of an improper removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Such costs and fees

normally should not be awarded if the removing party had an “objectively reasonable basis

for removal.” Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 999 (9th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks

and citations omitted). Because the Court concludes that Defendant did not have an

objectively reasonable basis for removing this case, attorneys’ fees and costs will be

awarded. Id. at 999. The Court will set a briefing schedule below. Moore v. Permanente

Med. Group, Inc., 981 F.2d 443, 445 (1992) (holding that district courts retain jurisdiction

after remand to award fees and costs under § 1447(c)).

Second, Plaintiff asks the Court to enter the temporary restraining order (“TRO”) it

sought in state court. Plaintiff seeks entry of the TRO as a sanction for Defendant’s improper

removal, relying on Wisconsin v. Missionaries to the Preborn, 796 F. Supp. 389 (E.D. Wis.

1992). The Court will deny Plaintiff’s request. Plaintiff has not provided the Court with the

information necessary to grant the TRO as a sanction. Plaintiff attaches a draft TRO to its

motion, but has provided the Court with none of the briefing or evidentiary material filed in

state court in support of the TRO. Dkt. #6, Ex. B. The proposed TRO would impose specific

limitations on Defendant’s business, directing the payment of funds, requiring

communications with customers and account debtors, and requiring that an accounting be

performed. The Court will not enter such an order as a sanction in the absence of some

demonstration that the TRO is warranted given the facts of this case. Nor has Plaintiff shown

that its ability to obtain a TRO in time to avoid irreparable harm has been impaired by the

removal. Plaintiff asserts in its response to Defendant’s motion that “[l]iterally tens of

thousands of dollars a day could be . . . diverted,” but provides no evidence that such

diversion has occurred. Dkt. #9 at 2 (emphasis added). 

In short, although the Court concludes that an award of fees and costs is appropriate

for the plainly improper removal of this case, the Court cannot conclude that the TRO should

be entered as a sanction against Defendant. Once this matter is remanded, the Court will

have no further jurisdiction to hear and decide the request for the TRO on the merits. “[I]t

is clear that an order of remand to state court ends the jurisdiction of the federal court over

Case 2:08-cv-01206-DGC Document 10 Filed 07/02/08 Page 2 of 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 -

the case.” Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction 3d § 379

at 491.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Remand (Dkt. #6) is granted in part and

denied in part. 

2. Defendant’s Request for Remand (Dkt. #8) is granted.

3. This case is remanded to Maricopa County Superior Court.

4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), the Court will require Defendant to pay the

reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees incurred by Plaintiff as a result of the

improper removal of this action. Plaintiff shall file an application for

attorneys’ fees and costs on or before July 18, 2008. Defendant shall file a

response on or before July 31, 2008. Plaintiff shall file a reply on or before

August 8, 2008. The Court will then award attorneys’ fees and costs without

further briefing or oral argument.

DATED this 2nd day of July, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-01206-DGC Document 10 Filed 07/02/08 Page 3 of 3