Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01656/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01656-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAIMLERCHRYSLER SERVICES NORTH

AMERICA LLC, a Michigan limited

liability company, dba

Mercedes-Benz Credit, fka

Mercedes-Benz Credit

Corporation, a Delaware

corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

DONALD M. WANLAND JR., GEORGIA

WANLAND, and DOES 1 through 20,

inclusive,

Defendants. 

CIV-S-05-1656 DFL DAD

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION 

AND ORDER

Defendants removed this action on August 15, 2005. On

September 15, 2005, plaintiff DaimlerChrysler Services North

America LLC, doing business as Mercedes-Benz Credit (“Mercedes”)

moved to remand. Defendants do not oppose the remand motion. 

Therefore, Mercedes’s motion to remand is GRANTED.

In connection with its motion to remand, Mercedes also

requests attorney’s fees from defendants under 28 U.S.C. §

1447(c). The court has wide discretion under § 1447(c) and may

Case 2:05-cv-01656-DFL-DAD Document 13 Filed 11/14/05 Page 1 of 3
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

 8.7 hours x $225.00 per hour. 1

2

award fees for an improper removal even if the removal was not in

bad faith, frivolous, or vexatious. Moore v. Permanente Med.

Group, 981 F.2d 443, 447-48 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Defendants’ removal was improper on two grounds. First, the

amount in controversy requirement for diversity cases was not

met. And second, an in-state defendant may not remove a

diversity case to federal court. See Spencer v. U.S. Dist. Ct.

for N. Dist. of Cal., 393 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding a

local defendant may not remove a case based on diversity

jurisdiction). Defendants’ contention that this second

impediment to removal is not jurisdictional and could have been

waived by plaintiff is rather feeble in the context of this case,

because defendants knew that plaintiff had no intention of

agreeing to removal. For these reasons, the court finds that an

award of reasonable attorney’s fees is appropriate under §

1447(c).

Mercedes submits a declaration from its attorney stating

that it incurred $1,957.50 in attorney’s fees as a result of the 1

removal. No objection is made to either the rate or the number

of hours. Therefore, Mercedes’s request for attorney’s fees is

GRANTED. Defendants are ordered to pay plaintiff the sum of

$1,957.50. The clerk is directed to enter judgment and to remand

the case to the El Dorado County Superior Court.

Case 2:05-cv-01656-DFL-DAD Document 13 Filed 11/14/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 11/10/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01656-DFL-DAD Document 13 Filed 11/14/05 Page 3 of 3