Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00568/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00568-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES, )

INC., et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.

) 05-0568-BH-B

NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE )

COMPANY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

This action is before the Court on Diane Foster’s motion (Doc. 34) for clarification

of the Court’s remand Order of November 29, 2005 (Doc. 33). Foster has correctly

advised the Court that it erred in its conclusion that she had not requested “just costs and

actual expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred as a result of the removal.” Foster

Brief in Support of Motion to Remand (Doc. 6) at 8, as quoted in the present Motion at

2.Consequently, it is ORDERED that the Order entered on November 29, 2005, be and is

hereby AMENDED to add Diane Foster to Paragraphs 4 and 5, the former which shall now

read:

4. The request of the plaintiffs and Diane Foster for an award of

costs and actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the

improper and improvident removal of this action by New Hampshire and

ARCBC is due to be and is hereby GRANTED. The Court agrees that the

plaintiffs and Diane Foster are entitled to such an award for the reasons in

their request (Docs. 6, 11 and 21). As was the case in Caldwell v. United

Ins. Co. of America, 2001 WL 910409, *2 (M.D. Ala. Aug 2, 2001), this

court finds with respect to the case at bar “that the removal was erroneous,

that no conduct by the plaintiff contributed to the erroneous removal, and that

an award is fair and equitable under all the circumstances.” As is also true in

this case, “[t]his is a run-of-the-mill case where a defendant has sought to

Case 1:05-cv-00568-BH-B Document 35 Filed 12/06/05 Page 1 of 2
2

expand the boundaries of federal subject matter jurisdiction without

substantial grounds for doing so [and] [s]uch improper actions ‘have wrought

needless litigation costs upon the other party, upset the sensitive principles

of federalism underlying our nation's dual court system, and frustrated

judicial economy’.” Id., citing, Gardner v. Allstate Indem. Co., 147

F.Supp.2d 1257, 1261-64 (M.D. Ala. 2001). It is therefore FURTHER

ORDERED that the plaintiffs and Diane Foster submit their costs and

expenses with supporting documentation demonstrating the reasonableness

of the award they seek by no later than December 21, 2005, and that New

Hampshire and ARCBC, jointly or severally, file their objections, if any, by

no later than January 4, 2006, at which time the Court will determine the

amount of the award to be imposed. The Court would encourage the parties,

however, to resolve this matter by an amicable settlement prior to incurring

any further expense over the matter.

Paragraph 5 is specifically AMENDED to the extent that the Court retains jurisdiction for

the purpose of, and to the extent necessary for, determining the amount of costs and

expenses to be awarded Diane Foster as well as the plaintiffs, if such cannot be resolved by

the parties themselves.

DONE this 6th day of December, 2005.

 s/ W. B. Hand 

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00568-BH-B Document 35 Filed 12/06/05 Page 2 of 2