Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01177/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01177-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

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 

M&I Marshall & Ilsley Bank,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Jay and Tana Boersma, husband and wife, 

Defendants.

No. CV-11-1177-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 On June 6, 2011, Plaintiff filed a forcible entry and detainer action against 

Defendants in state court. Doc. 1-1 at 3-45. Defendant Jay Boersma removed the action 

to this Court a week later. Doc. 1. In an order dated July 18, 2011, the Court remanded 

the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Doc. 12. 

 Plaintiff has filed a motion for an award attorneys’ fees against Jay Boersma in the 

amount of $2,911. Doc. 13. No response has been filed. For reasons stated below, the 

motion will be granted. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), the Court “may require payment of just costs and 

any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.” The 

Court finds that Defendant “had no objectively reasonable basis for removal.” Patel v. 

Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 999 (9th Cir. 2006). Because Plaintiff’s forcible entry and 

detainer action does not depend on resolution of any issue of federal law, the Court does 

not have federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Defendant presented no 

evidence, or even an argument, that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional 

amount for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Moreover, because 

Case 2:11-cv-01177-DGC Document 15 Filed 09/14/11 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

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 

Defendant is a citizen of Arizona, the forum defendant rule, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), 

prohibited removal on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. See Doc. 12. 

“The process of removing a case to federal court and then having it remanded back 

to state court delays resolution of the case, imposes additional costs on both parties, and 

waste judicial resources.” Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 140 (2005). 

“Assessing costs and fees on remand reduces the attractiveness of removal as a method 

for delaying litigation and imposing costs on the plaintiff.” Id. The Court finds that an 

award of fees for the improper removal is appropriate in this case even though Defendant 

is proceeding pro se. Defendant is not a novice litigator, having filed multiple suits 

against Plaintiff and another bank. See Case Nos. CV-10-2221-NVW, CV-11-0148-

ROS, CV-11-0768-JAT, CV-11-1522-DGC. 

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s supporting memorandum (Doc. 13) and counsel’s 

declaration and statement of fees (Docs. 13-3, 13-4), and having considered the record as 

a whole and the relevant fee award factors, see Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 

429-30 & n.3 (1983), the Court finds the requested fee award to be reasonable and 

appropriate. See also LRCiv 54.2(c)(3)(A)-(M). The Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion 

and award it attorneys’ fees in the amount of $2,911. 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees against Jay Boersma (Doc. 34) is 

granted. 

2. Attorneys’ fees are awarded in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Jay 

Boersma in the amount of $2,911.00. 

Dated this 14th day of September, 2011. 

Case 2:11-cv-01177-DGC Document 15 Filed 09/14/11 Page 2 of 2