Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03647/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03647-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SIONE T. FONUA, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. C 05-3647 PJH

v. ORDER GRANTING 

MOTION TO REMAND

MARK MYERS, AND REQUEST FOR FEES

Defendant.

_______________________________/

Plaintiffs’ motion to remand came on for hearing before this court on December 7,

2005. Plaintiffs Sione T. Fonua, Samson J. Fonua, Kalake Fonua, and Sione F. Fonua

appeared by their counsel John J. Hartford, and defendant Mark Myers appeared by his

counsel Richard G. Grotch. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their

arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby

GRANTS the motion as follows and for the reasons stated at the hearing. 

Plaintiffs filed this action on March 14, 2005, in the Superior Court of California, County

of San Mateo, and served defendant by substituted service on July 25, 2005. On August 18,

2005, defendant demurred to the complaint. On September 12, 2005, defendant filed a

notice of removal, asserting federal question jurisdiction, and alleging that he had not known

until plaintiffs filed their opposition to the demurrer that their lawsuit was predicated upon

claims under the federal civil rights laws. Plaintiffs now seek an order remanding the case,

arguing that the federal claims were apparent on the face of the complaint and that the notice

of removal was filed more than 30 days following service of the summons and complaint.

The removal statutes are construed restrictively, so as to limit removal jurisdiction. 
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

Doubts as to removability are resolved in favor of remanding the case to state court. 

Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108-09 (1941); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980

F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The “well-pleaded” complaint rule makes plaintiff the “master of

the claim.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). This means that, absent

diversity, a case is removable only where a federal question is presented on the face of the

plaintiff’s complaint. See Schwarzer, Tashima & Wagstaffe, Federal Civil Procedure Before

Trial (2005) § 2:709. 

A notice of removal must be filed “within 30 days after receipt by the defendant, through

service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). The 30-day

period starts to run only upon the defendant’s receipt of an “amended pleading, motion, order,

or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is . . . removable.” Id. 

Here, as previously stated on the record, the court finds that the complaint clearly

alleges violations of plaintiffs’ federal constitutional rights, sufficient to put any reasonable

person on notice that the complaint presents federal claims on its face. Accordingly, the court

finds that the motion to remand must be GRANTED, and that the case must be remanded to

the San Mateo County Superior Court.

Plaintiffs also seek attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), which

provides that a remand order “may require the payment of just costs and any actual expenses,

including attorney fees.” At the hearing, although the court found that defendant’s notice of

removal was frivolous and ordered remand on that basis, the court also denied the request for

fees and costs on the ground that it was excessive and overstated. Upon further

consideration, however, and in light of the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Martin v.

Franklin Capital Corp., __ S.Ct. __ , 2005 WL 3299410 (U.S.) (Dec. 7, 2005), the court finds

it appropriate to exercise discretion in favor of awarding a portion of the amount requested by

plaintiffs. 

In Martin, the Court held that “[a]bsent unusual circumstances, courts may award

attorney’s fees under § 1447(c) only where the removing party lacked an objectively

reasonable basis for seeking removal,” and that “[c]onversely, when an objectively reasonable
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

basis exists, fees should be denied.” Martin, 2005 WL 3299410 at *6. Although an award of

fees is never mandatory, see id. at *3, the Court also emphasized that courts should exercise

discretion to award fees in conformance with the purposes underlying the removal statute, see

id. at *5-6. 

Thus, because the court finds that defendant lacked an objectively reasonable basis for

seeking removal in this case, the court will award plaintiffs a reasonable attorney’s fee. 

Plaintiffs seek a total of $16,240.00. This includes $6,405.00 for 18.5 hours spent before the

notice of removal was filed (with the notation “discovery”); $9,835.00 for 28.1 hours spend

reviewing the notice of removal, conducting legal research relating to the impropriety of

removal, and preparing the motion to remand; and $875.00 for 3.2 hours spend reviewing the

opposition to the motion and preparing the reply; plus $72.00 for the cost of copying the

exhibits to the motion to remand. 

Plaintiffs may not recover the requested $6,405.00 in fees for the 18.5 hours spent

before the notice of removal was filed, as that work is unconnected to the motion to remand. 

As for the requested $10,710.00 for the 31.3 hours spent on the motion to remand, the court

finds that amount to be excessive in light of the work required, and will therefore limit the

award to $3,000.00. The request for $72.00 in copying costs is denied, as plaintiffs have not

supported that request with adequate documentation of the reasonableness of the cost (i.e.,

number of copies times cost per copy).

In accordance with the foregoing, this case is hereby REMANDED to the Superior

Court of California, County of San Mateo. Defendant is ORDERED to pay to plaintiffs, within

ten days of the date of this order, the sum of $3,000.00 in attorney’s fees for improper

removal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 9, 2005 

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

123456789

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4