Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04822/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04822-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK KOZELEK,

Plaintiff,

v

JETSET RECORDS, a DBA designation

for SHELLEY MAPLE, et al,

Defendants.

 /

No C-05-4822 VRW

ORDER

Plaintiff Mark Kozelek seeks attorney fees after

prevailing on a motion to remand this action to state court

pursuant to 28 USC § 1447(c). Doc #30. For reasons discussed

below, plaintiff’s motion for fees is DENIED and the hearing of

September 28, 2006 is VACATED.

On February 8, 2005, plaintiff filed suit in San

Francisco county superior court against Jetset Records (“Jetset”),

Ryko Distribution (“Ryko”) and various Doe defendants seeking

declaratory relief, injunctive relief and “[c]ompensatory damages

in an amount in excess of $25,000, plus interest thereon, together

with punitive damages” arising out of defendants’ alleged breach of

a music recording and sales contract. Doc #1-2 (Not of Rem), Ex A,

¶¶ 1, 5-8 and at 7. After filing an amended complaint on August 4,

2005, that sought essentially the same monetary relief, plaintiff

Case 3:05-cv-04822-VRW Document 35 Filed 09/25/06 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

filed a statement of damages on October 28, 2005, claiming and

reserving the right to seek $175,000 in damages and $50,000 in

attorneys’ fees and costs. Not of Rem, Ex C (FAC) at 10; id, Ex H. 

On November 4, 2005, plaintiff filed a stipulation signed

by all parties that required Ryko to deposit $21,128.03 with the

San Francisco county clerk and compelled plaintiff to dismiss Ryko

with prejudice within two business days of payment. Not of Rem, Ex

I, § 6. The state court adopted the stipulation on November 18,

2005, and four days later, Ryko informed Jetset that it would

deposit the money by November 28, 2005. Not of Rem, ¶ 10.

Jetset and Shelley Maple (collectively, the “removing

defendants”) filed a notice of removal on November 23, 2005. Id. 

Ryko did not join in the removal and was later dismissed by the

court after Ryko deposited payment on November 28, 2005. Doc #11

at 2. On December 7, 2005, plaintiff timely moved to remand and

argued, inter alia, that this case should be remanded because

defendant Ryko “was a party to this action at the time of removal,

but did not join in the removal.” Doc #4 at 3 n1. The court

granted plaintiff’s motion to remand, concluding that removal was

procedurally defective due to Ryko’s non-joinder. Doc #28. 

Plaintiff now seeks to obtain the costs and fees incurred

as a result of defendants’ improper removal pursuant to 28 USC §

1447(c). Doc #30. Absent unusual circumstances, courts award

attorney fees under 28 USC § 1447(c) only if the removing party

“lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.” 

Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp, 126 S Ct 704, 711 (2005). 

//

//

Case 3:05-cv-04822-VRW Document 35 Filed 09/25/06 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

The court finds that defendants had an objectively

reasonable basis for seeking removal. In its order to remand, the

court noted that several district courts had found that a

settlement agreement, such as the stipulation between plaintiff and

Ryko, excused a defendant from joining in a notice of removal even

before that defendant was formally dismissed. Doc #28 at 3. The

court distinguished these cases because they turned upon whether

complete diversity was present at the time of removal. That is,

the defendants in those cases were jurisdictionally barred from

removing until the plaintiff dismissed a non-diverse defendant,

which a plaintiff who sought to avoid removal might be loathe to

do. By contrast, the removing defendants in the present case

simply had to secure Ryko’s approval to remove this case. Id. 

Given that plaintiff had not attempted to prevent removal, the

court declined to depart from the general principle that “all

defendants who may properly join in the removal petition must

join.” Id at 4 (citing Ely Valley Mines, Inc v Hartford Accident &

Indemnity Co, 644 F2d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir 1981)). 

Although the district court cases cited in the order did

not ultimately persuade the court, they reasonably supported the

removing defendants’ argument that the stipulation between

plaintiff and Ryko excused Ryko from joining in a notice of

removal. Hence, the removing defendants had an objectively

reasonable basis for removal. 

//

//

//

//

Case 3:05-cv-04822-VRW Document 35 Filed 09/25/06 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

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to obtain the costs and

fees incurred as a result of defendants’ improper removal is DENIED

and the September 28, 2006, hearing is VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04822-VRW Document 35 Filed 09/25/06 Page 4 of 4