Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02229/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02229-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of 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

BATM ADVANCED COMMUNICATIONS LTD,

Plaintiff,

v

GODIGITAL NETWORK CORP, et al,

Defendants. /

No C 06-2229 VRW

ORDER

On March 28, 2006, defendants GoDigital Network Corp

(“GoDigital”) and Frank Akers filed a notice of removal of this

action from the Alameda County superior court. Doc #1. On April

7, 2006, plaintiff BATM Advanced Communications Ltd (“BATM”) timely

moved to remand. Doc #3. 

In any civil action in which federal jurisdiction is

based solely on diversity of citizenship, “such action shall be

removable only if none of the parties in interest properly joined

and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such

action is brought.” 28 USC § 1441(b). BATM argues that removal

Case 3:06-cv-02229-VRW Document 10 Filed 04/12/06 Page 1 of 3
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

was improper because both GoDigital and Akers are California

residents. 

The complaint alleges that GoDigital and Akers are

California residents. Doc #1, Ex 1 (Compl). In their notice of

removal, GoDigital and Akers admit they are both California

residents. Doc #1 ¶¶7-8. It is clear that removal on the basis of

diversity was improper. Further, no other basis for federal

jurisdiction appears on the face of the complaint, which alleges

only claims arising under state law. See generally Compl. Removal

was therefore improper. 

BATM’s motion to remand is accordingly GRANTED. This

action is hereby REMANDED to the Alameda County superior court. 

BATM’s administrative motion to hear its motion to remand on an

expedited basis, Doc #7, is DENIED AS MOOT.

BATM also requests an award of fees and costs on the

ground that there was no objectively reasonable basis for removal. 

See 28 USC § 1447(c); Martin v Franklin Capital Corp, 126 S Ct 704

(2005). Notwithstanding that the action is remanded to the state

court, the court retains jurisdiction over BATM’s motion for fees

and costs. See Moore v Permanente Medical Group, Inc, 971 F2d 443,

445 (9th Cir 1992). The court will hear the parties on this

motion, if at all, on June 22, 2006, the date originally noticed

for BATM’s motion to remand. 

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:06-cv-02229-VRW Document 10 Filed 04/12/06 Page 2 of 3
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

With regard to the practice of the undersigned in

calculating fee awards, the court directs the parties’ attention to

In re HPL Technologies Sec, Inc Litig, 366 F Supp 2d 912, 919-22

(ND Cal 2005) (Walker), and Willis v City of Oakland, 231 FRD 597,

600-02 (ND Cal 2005) (Walker) (applying the principles of HPL

outside the class action context). 

SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02229-VRW Document 10 Filed 04/12/06 Page 3 of 3