Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03337/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03337-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EMBARCADERO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a

Delaware corporation, 

Plaintiff,

v.

TTI TEAM TELECOM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1

through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-3337 CW

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION TO REMAND

Plaintiff Embarcadero Technologies, Inc. moves to remand this

removed action to State court. Defendant TTI Team Telecom

Technologies, Inc. has filed a notice of non-opposition to the

remand. The matter was submitted on the papers. Having considered

all of the papers filed by the parties, the Court grants

Plaintiff's motion and remands this case to State court.

Case 4:06-cv-03337-CW Document 13 Filed 06/30/06 Page 1 of 4
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

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a Delaware corporation with its principal place

of business in San Francisco, California. Defendant is a Delaware

corporation with its principal place of business in Hoboken, New

Jersey. Plaintiff brought this action against Defendant in the San

Francisco County Superior Court of the State of California; its

complaint alleged only State law claims. Defendant removed the

action to this Court, contending that the Court had jurisdiction of

this action based on diversity of citizenship. Although the

caption on Defendant's notice of removal stated that Plaintiff was

a Delaware corporation, Defendant stated that it believed that

Plaintiff was a citizen of California. According to Defendant,

removal was proper, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, because this

action was between citizens of different states and the amount in

controversy exceeded $75,000. 

DISCUSSION

Removal from State court is proper where the federal court has

original jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claim. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1441(a). Both parties agree that the Court did not have original

jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims. Corporations are citizens of

the State in which they are incorporated and of the State in which

they have their principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c). 

Here, both parties are incorporated in Delaware; both are citizens

of Delaware. There is no diversity. And, in its notice of nonopposition, Defendant apologizes for its inadvertent mistake

regarding diversity jurisdiction.

Case 4:06-cv-03337-CW Document 13 Filed 06/30/06 Page 2 of 4
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

Although Defendant agrees that the Court should remand this

case to State court, Defendant argues that sanctions are not proper

because Plaintiff did not separately file a motion for sanctions as

required by Civil Local Rule 7-8. This is true, Plaintiff did not

file a separate motion for sanctions as required by the local

rules. But Plaintiff also seeks attorneys' fees under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1447(c). There is no requirement that a separate motion be filed

for fees under § 1447(c), and Defendant does not address this

section in its notice of non-opposition. 

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) provides, "An order remanding the

case may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses,

including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal." The

Ninth Circuit instructs that an award of attorneys' fees pursuant

to § 1447(c) is within the discretion of the district court. Moore

v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc., 981 F.2d 443, 448 (9th Cir.

1992). The Court need not find bad faith in order to award

attorneys' fees. Id. Here, although there may have been no bad

faith, there was no merit to Defendant's notice of removal. It was

clear from Plaintiff's complaint, and Defendant's notice of

removal, that the parties were not diverse: both parties are

Delaware corporations. Thus, the Court finds that awarding

Plaintiff attorneys' fees is appropriate. 

CONCLUSION

 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's

motion to remand (Docket No. 7) and REMANDS this case to State

court. Within fourteen days from the date of this order, Plaintiff

shall file a declaration, with supporting documentation, regarding

Case 4:06-cv-03337-CW Document 13 Filed 06/30/06 Page 3 of 4
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 4

the fees and costs incurred as a result of the removal. If

Defendant wishes to respond to Plaintiff's declaration regarding

attorneys' fees, it must do so within seven days of receiving the

declaration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 6/30/06 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-03337-CW Document 13 Filed 06/30/06 Page 4 of 4