Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-05101/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-05101-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange 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

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re BIGBAND NETWORKS, INC.

SECURITIES LITIGATION

__________________________________

This Document Relates To:

ALL ACTIONS.

 

Case No. 07-05101 SBA

ORDER

[Docket No. 58]

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Wiltjer's Motion to Remand [Docket No. 58]. Having

fully considered the arguments presented by the parties in the papers submitted to the Court, the

Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without a hearing pursuant to Rule 78(b).

The Court ORDERS as follows: 1) Plaintiff Wiltjer's Motion to Remand is GRANTED; and

2) This action is REMANDED to the Superior Court for the County of San Francisco.

In connection with its motion to remand, Wiltjer requests that this court award its attorney’s

fees and costs. Wiltjer argues that defendants had no reasonable basis for removal and that clearly

established federal law unequivocally prohibited removal under the circumstances of this case. 

This Court recognizes its authority to require payment of just costs and any actual expenses,

including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1447. In Martin v. Franklin

Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 136 (U.S. 2005), the Supreme Court held that “absent unusual

circumstances, attorney's fees should not be awarded when the removing party has an objectively

reasonable basis for removal.” Id. While this Court finds that SLUSA’s language regarding

removal of actions is unambiguous, this Court also notes that federal district courts are split over this

very question. Defendants have cited a number of holdings, including one from a district court in

this Circuit, in support of their interpretation of SLUSA’s removability provisions. The existence of

Case 4:07-cv-05101-SBA Document 83 Filed 06/17/08 Page 1 of 3
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

such case law, while admittedly at odds with the holding of this Court, nonetheless constitutes a

“reasonable basis for removal.” Accordingly, Wiltjer's request for an award of attorney's fees and

expenses is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

Dated: 6/16/08 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-05101-SBA Document 83 Filed 06/17/08 Page 2 of 3
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 3

Case 4:07-cv-05101-SBA Document 83 Filed 06/17/08 Page 3 of 3