Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00331/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00331-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rory Angold
Defendant
Wendie Finnan
Plaintiff
Zurich American Insurance Company, a New York corporation
Defendant

Document Text:

ORDER – No. 19-cv-00331-LB

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

San Francisco Division

WENDIE FINNAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE 

COMPANY, A NEW YORK 

CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-00331-LB

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO REMAND AND 

DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS

Re: ECF Nos. 5, 10

INTRODUCTION

This is an employment dispute between plaintiff Wendie Finnan and her former employer 

Zurich American Insurance Company (“Zurich”) and a Zurich supervisory manager, Rory Angold. 

Ms. Finnan alleges that the defendants induced her to move with her disabled husband from 

Florida to California to start a job with Zurich paying $180,000 a year. Once she started at Zurich, 

however, it turned out to be impossible for her to earn $180,000 a year because Zurich was not 

interested in the clients that she brought in. Ms. Finnan also alleges that before she was hired, Mr. 

Angold commented that she looked like an old schoolteacher and that he wanted to hire someone 

young and attractive to have “T&A” in the territory as opposed to someone like Ms. Finnan (who 

is over fifty). After Ms. Finnan was hired, Mr. Angold supported younger male employees but did 

not support her. Six months after Ms. Finnan started with Zurich, Zurich reduced its workforce 

Case 3:19-cv-00331-LB Document 22 Filed 03/18/19 Page 1 of 12
ORDER – No. 19-cv-00331-LB 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

and eliminated Ms. Finnan’s position. Ms. Finnan alleges that Mr. Angold played a role in her 

termination and that he did so based on her age, gender, and appearance.

Ms. Finnan filed suit in California Superior Court, bringing claims (1) against Zurich and Mr. 

Angold for violation of California Labor Code §§ 970–977, (2) against Zurich for violation of 

California Government Code §§ 12940 et seq. for wrongful termination based on gender and age 

discrimination, (3) against Zurich and Mr. Angold for wrongful termination in violation of public 

policy, (4) against Zurich and Mr. Angold for intentional infliction of emotional distress, 

(5) against Zurich and Mr. Angold for fraud, (6) against Zurich and Mr. Angold for violation of 

California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq. for unfair business practices, (7) against 

Zurich and Mr. Angold for promissory estoppel, and (8) against Zurich and Mr. Angold for 

fraudulent concealment.

The defendants removed the case to federal court, claiming diversity jurisdiction because Ms. 

Finnan is a citizen of California and Zurich is a citizen of New York and Illinois. Mr. Angold is 

also a citizen of California — but the defendants argue that Mr. Angold was fraudulently joined to 

this case and his citizenship thus should be disregarded. Ms. Finnan moved to remand the case 

back to state court. The defendants moved to dismiss Ms. Finnan’s complaint.1

The court can decide the motions without oral argument. N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The court 

grants Ms. Finnan’s motion to remand and denies the defendants’ motion to dismiss without 

prejudice as moot.

 

1 The defendants also moved for leave to file a sur-reply to Ms. Finnan’s reply to the defendants’ 

opposition to Ms. Finnan’s motion to remand. The court grants the defendants’ motion and considered 

the sur-reply in deciding the underlying motion to remand.

Case 3:19-cv-00331-LB Document 22 Filed 03/18/19 Page 2 of 12
ORDER – No. 19-cv-00331-LB 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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

STATEMENT

1. The Parties’ Citizenship

Ms. Finnan and Mr. Angold are both citizens of California.2 Zurich is a citizen of New York 

and Illinois and is not a citizen of California.3

2. The Complaint

Ms. Finnan makes the following allegations in her complaint.

In 2017, Ms. Finnan was living in Florida with her disabled husband.4In April 2017, she 

received a telephone call from a Zurich employee soliciting her for an account-executive position 

with Zurich in Northern California under the supervision of Pamela Frades, the Regional Sales 

Manager.5 Ms. Finnan then spoke with Ms. Frades on that call.6 Ms. Frades said that the position 

involved selling commercial- and personal-insurance products and property and casualty coverage 

to car dealers.7 Ms. Frades said that Zurich had been in business for over a hundred years and was 

a $650-billion-dollar insurance company that was very stable, that Zurich insured over half the car 

dealerships in the United States, and that Zurich provided premium products that were the best in 

the industry.8(Ms. Finnan alleges that, contrary to Ms. Frades’s statements, Zurich’s sales of 

property and casualty coverage had been decreasing and Zurich planned to undergo a round of 

layoffs of property- and casualty-coverage salespeople.9)

 

2 Compl. – ECF No. 1 at 23–24 (¶¶ 4, 7). Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File 

(“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.

3 Liberman Decl. – ECF No. 1-2 at 2 (¶ 3).

4 Compl. – ECF No. 1 at 25 (¶ 12).

5

Id.

6

Id.

7

Id. (¶ 13).

8

Id. at 25–26 (¶ 13).

9

Id. (¶ 14).

Case 3:19-cv-00331-LB Document 22 Filed 03/18/19 Page 3 of 12
ORDER – No. 19-cv-00331-LB 4

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

Northern District of California

Ms. Frades said that Zurich was looking to hire long-term career candidates and was not 

interested in applicants looking just for a job or a short-term position.10 Ms. Frades said that there 

were three account-executive positions for three territories that were available and that they paid 

$100,000, $120,000 and $180,000 per year, respectively.11 Ms. Finnan responded that she would 

be interested only in the $180,000 position, because she was happy at her current job, moving to 

California would be a major life change for her and her disabled husband, and she would consider 

making a significant life change only for a long-term stable career with exceptional income 

potential.12

In May 2017, Ms. Finnan flew to California for an in-person interview with Ms. Frades.13 In 

June 2017, Ms. Finnan flew to California for several days to have another in-person interview, 

view her potential territory, and gain insight into the position.14 Ms. Finnan met with Ms. Frades

and two other Zurich management employees, Rory Angold and Josh Danielson, on that trip.15

Prior to Ms. Finnan’s flying out, Mr. Angold looked up her LinkedIn profile and said that she 

looked like an old schoolteacher.16 Mr. Angold said he wanted to hire someone young and 

attractive and wanted “T&A” (tits and ass) in the territory, not someone like Ms. Finnan.17

At the June 2017 meeting, Mr. Angold asked Ms. Finnan if she knew what the position paid.18

Ms. Finnan said that she understood it was to pay around $180,000.19 Mr. Angold said that was 

correct, Ms. Frades nodded affirmatively, and Mr. Danielson did not dispute that amount.20

 

10 Id. at 26 (¶ 13).

11 Id. (¶ 15).

12 Id. (¶ 16).

13 Id. (¶ 19).

14 Id. at 27 (¶ 20).

15 Id. (¶ 21).

16 Id. (¶ 20).

17 Id.

18 Id. (¶ 22).

19 Id.

20 Id.

Case 3:19-cv-00331-LB Document 22 Filed 03/18/19 Page 4 of 12
ORDER – No. 19-cv-00331-LB 5

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

Northern District of California

On July 5, 2017, Ms. Finnan received an employment offer letter from Zurich.21 The letter said 

that Ms. Finnan would be working remotely from her home office and reporting to Ms. Frades, 

with an anticipated start date of July 24, 2017.22 Ms. Frades allowed Ms. Finnan a week in Florida 

after the July 24 start date to prepare for the move to California.23 Ms. Frades was aware that Ms. 

Finnan’s husband had just undergone surgery, was under home health care, was unable to walk, 

and was on an intravenous line for antibiotics.24 Based on the information Zurich provided to her, 

Ms. Finnan packed up or sold her belongings and moved to California, where she began her 

employment with Zurich, approximately one week after the July 24 start date.25

Within a couple of weeks of Ms. Finnan’s starting at Zurich, her manager (Ms. Frades) was 

transferred and was never replaced.26

Mr. Angold supported the younger male employees and spent time with them in their 

territories but refused to spend time with Ms. Finnan in her territory, allegedly because of her 

gender, age, and appearance.

27

It turned out to be impossible for Ms. Finnan to earn $180,000 a year because Zurich was not 

interested in the types of clients that Ms. Finnan was hired and incentivized by commissions to 

solicit and retain.28 Within six months of Ms. Finnan’s starting with Zurich, Zurich reduced its 

presence in this line of business, reduced its workforce, and eliminated Ms. Finnan’s position.29

Ms. Finnan alleges on information and belief that Mr. Angold played a role in Zurich’s decision to 

terminate her due to her age, gender, and appearance.30

 

21 Id. (¶ 24).

22 Id.

23 Id. (¶ 25).

24 Id.

25 Id. at 27–28 (¶ 26).

26 Id. at 28 (¶ 27).

27 Id.

28 Id. (¶ 28).

29 Id.

30 Id. (¶ 29).

Case 3:19-cv-00331-LB Document 22 Filed 03/18/19 Page 5 of 12
ORDER – No. 19-cv-00331-LB 6

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

Northern District of California

3. Ms. Frades’s Declaration

Ms. Finnan attaches to her motion to remand a sworn declaration from Ms. Frades that 

contains additional assertions.

Ms. Finnan submitted an application to Zurich in April 2017 and completed an online 

assessment.31 Ms. Finnan scored 34, significantly higher than all other candidates, who had scores 

that ranged from 19 to 27.32 In May 2017, Ms. Frades and Divisional Vice President Josh 

Danielson reviewed the candidates’ applications and agreed that Ms. Finnan was the top candidate 

based on her qualifications.33 When Ms. Finnan came in for her first in-person interview in May, 

Mr. Danielson’s attitude changed.34 Mr. Danielson asked Ms. Frades, “Do you see her?” (referring 

to Ms. Finnan) and repeated several times that Ms. Frades needed to look at Ms. Finnan.35 Ms. 

Frades believes Mr. Danielson was attempting to indicate that he had an issue with Ms. Finnan’s 

age and appearance.36 Mr. Danielson was scheduled to attend Ms. Finnan’s interview with Ms. 

Frades, but after seeing her, asked to be excused from the interview.37

Ms. Frades conducted an interview of Ms. Finnan alone and said that the interview went 

extremely well.38 Ms. Frades said that the next step in the candidacy process was for Ms. Finnan 

to do a ride-along with another account executive in her proposed territory.39 Ms. Frades said that 

she would arrange the ride-along quickly because the account executive was leaving Zurich at the 

end of the month, and it was important for that account executive to pass her knowledge to Ms. 

Finnan.40

 

31 Frades Decl. – ECF No. 10-1 at 3 (¶ 5).

32 Id.

33 Id. (¶ 6).

34 Id.

35 Id.

36 Id.

37 Id. (¶ 7).

38 Id. at 3–4 (¶ 8).

39 Id. at 4 (¶ 9).

40 Id.

Case 3:19-cv-00331-LB Document 22 Filed 03/18/19 Page 6 of 12
ORDER – No. 19-cv-00331-LB 7

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

Northern District of California

Ms. Frades was unable to secure a second interview with Ms. Finnan for six weeks.41 Ms. 

Frades states that her co-manager, Rory Angold, adamantly opposed hiring her due to her gender, 

age, and appearance.42 Mr. Angold looked up Ms. Finnan’s LinkedIn profile and said that she 

looked like an old schoolteacher.43 Mr. Angold said that if a female were to be hired at all, he only 

wanted to hire someone young and attractive.44 Mr. Angold said he wanted “T&A” (tits and ass)

in the territory, “not someone like Wendie [Finnan].”45 Mr. Angold said he would rather hire 

another individual who Ms. Frades characterized as a “young attractive female candidate.”46

In May 2017, Mr. Danielson and Mr. Angold conducted phone interviews with Ms. Finnan.47

Mr. Angold told Ms. Frades that the interview went well but that he was still against hiring Ms. 

Finnan, repeating that she was “old” and “like a schoolteacher.”48 Mr. Angold said Ms. Finnan 

belonged in a cubicle, not out in the field to be rejected by dealers when they see her.49 Mr. 

Angold repeated that he wanted some “T&A” in the territory and wanted someone young and 

attractive “like [the other female candidate].”50

In June 2017, Ms. Finnan had a second interview with Ms. Frades, Mr. Angold, and Mr. 

Danielson.51 Mr. Angold asked Ms. Finnan if she knew what the position paid.52 Ms. Finnan said 

around $180,000, and Mr. Angold said that was correct.53 Ms. Frades characterizes Ms. Finnan’s 

 

41 Id. (¶ 10).

42 Id.

43 Id.

44 Id.

45 Id.

46 Id.

47 Id. (¶ 11).

48 Id.

49 Id.

50 Id.

51 Id. at 5 (¶ 13).

52 Id. (¶ 14).

53 Id.

Case 3:19-cv-00331-LB Document 22 Filed 03/18/19 Page 7 of 12
ORDER – No. 19-cv-00331-LB 8

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

Northern District of California

second interview as going exceptionally well and states that she, Mr. Angold, and Mr. Danielson 

all agreed that they should have it recorded to show candidates how to interview.54

Ms. Finnan reported for work in California at Zurich on August 1, 2017.55 In mid-August, Ms. 

Frades accepted a position with Zurich in Seattle and told Ms. Finnan that she would no longer be 

Ms. Finnan’s manager.56 Mr. Angold and Mr. Danielson became Ms. Finnan’s acting managers.57

Mr. Angold reported to Ms. Frades that Ms. Finnan was troublesome because she called 

underwriters, peers, instructors, and others to ask questions.58 Ms. Frades asked Mr. Angold why 

he was not doing his job as a manager to support Ms. Finnan’s professional development.59 Mr. 

Angold responded that he did not like Ms. Finnan.60

Mr. Angold supported male account executives and spent time with them in their territories but 

refused to spend time with Ms. Finnan in hers.61 Mr. Angold also excluded Ms. Finnan from 

discussions and correspondence regarding clients and potential clients.62 For example, Mr. Angold 

had a meeting with a “mega” dealer group to try to get their finance and insurance business.63 Mr. 

Angold told Ms. Frades that he had not told Ms. Finnan that Zurich was working with the group 

because Ms. Finnan did not fit the image of the Zurich brand that he wanted to convey.64 Mr. 

Angold referred to Ms. Finnan as “fat and ugly.”65

 

54 Id. (¶ 16).

55 Id. at 6 (¶ 21).

56 Id. (¶ 23).

57 Id.

58 Id. (¶ 24).

59 Id.

60 Id.

61 Id. at 7 (¶ 26).

62 Id.

63 Id. (¶ 27).

64 Id.

65 Id. (¶ 28.b).

Case 3:19-cv-00331-LB Document 22 Filed 03/18/19 Page 8 of 12
ORDER – No. 19-cv-00331-LB 9

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

Northern District of California

In December 2017 or January 2018, Zurich instituted a round of layoffs.66 Ms. Frades believes 

that female field staff, especially over 50 years in age, were terminated at a higher rate than men.67

Ms. Frades believes that Mr. Angold discussed with Jeffrey Bahr, Divisional Vice President, who 

would be terminated in the layoffs and that Mr. Angold was instrumental in determining who 

would be terminated.68

ANALYSIS

The parties filed competing motions: Ms. Finnan’s motion to remand and defendants’ motion 

to dismiss. The court first considers Ms. Finnan’s motion because it goes to federal subject-matter 

jurisdiction, a threshold inquiry.

1. Governing Law

Subject to certain limitations, a defendant in state court may remove an action to federal court 

if the case could have been filed originally in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Original 

jurisdiction may be based on diversity or federal-question jurisdiction. See Caterpillar Inc. v. 

Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987); 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. To invoke diversity jurisdiction, the 

complaint must allege that “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, 

exclusive of interest and costs, and is between [] citizens of different States[.]” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332(a)(1).

“Diversity removal requires complete diversity, meaning that each plaintiff must be of a 

different citizenship from each defendant.” Grancare, LLC v. Thrower ex rel. Mills, 889 F.3d 543, 

548 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996)). “In determining 

whether there is complete diversity, district courts may disregard the citizenship of a non-diverse 

defendant who has been fraudulently joined.” Id. (citing Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Cockrell, 

 

66 Id. at 8 (¶ 30).

67 Id.

68 Id. (¶ 31).

Case 3:19-cv-00331-LB Document 22 Filed 03/18/19 Page 9 of 12
ORDER – No. 19-cv-00331-LB 10

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

Northern District of California

232 U.S. 146, 152 (1914)). “There are two ways to establish fraudulent joinder: ‘(1) actual fraud in 

the pleading of jurisdictional facts, or (2) inability of the plaintiff to establish a cause of action 

against the non-diverse party in state court.’” Id. (quoting Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 

1039, 1044 (9th Cir. 2009)). “Fraudulent joinder is established the second way if a defendant 

shows that an ‘individual joined in the action cannot be liable on any theory.’” Id. (internal 

brackets omitted) (quoting Ritchey v. Upjohn Drug Co., 139 F.3d 1313, 1318 (9th Cir. 1998)).

“But ‘if there is a possibility that a state court would find that the complaint states a cause of 

action against any of the resident defendants, the federal court must find that the joinder was 

proper and remand the case to the state court.’” Id. (emphasis in original) (quoting Hunter, 582 

F.3d at 1046)).

“A defendant invoking federal court diversity jurisdiction on the basis of fraudulent joinder 

bears a ‘heavy burden’ since there is a ‘general presumption against finding fraudulent joinder.’” 

Id. (internal brackets omitted) (quoting Hunter, 582 F.3d at 1046)). “Fraudulent joinder must be 

proven by clear and convincing evidence.” Hamilton Materials Inc. v. Dow Chem. Corp., 494 F.3d 

1203, 1206 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Pampillonia v. RJR Nabisco, Inc., 138 F.3d 459, 461 (2d Cir. 

1998)). Courts refuse to find fraudulent joiner “where a defendant raises a defense that requires a 

searching inquiry into the merits of the plaintiff’s case, even if that defense, if successful, would 

prove fatal.” Grancare, 889 F.3d at 548–49 (citing Hunter, 582 F.3d at 1046). Additionally, “[i]f a 

defendant cannot withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the fraudulent inquiry does not end there. For 

example, the district court must consider . . . whether a deficiency in the complaint can possibly be 

cured by granting the plaintiff leave to amend.” Id. at 550. A court may find fraudulent joinder 

only if the claim against the non-diverse defendant is “wholly insubstantial and frivolous.” Id. at 

549.69

 

69 The defendants argue that in deciding whether a defendant has been fraudulently joined, the 

defendants can present facts outside the complaint, while the plaintiff is limited to the facts and 

allegations asserted in her complaint and cannot rely on unpleaded facts or allegations. Defs. Remand 

Opp’n – ECF No. 17 at 8–9. In support of their argument, the defendants cite Kruso v. International 

Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 872 F.2d 1416, 1426 n.12 (9th Cir. 1989). Kruso does not support the 

defendants’ argument. The Ninth Circuit in Kruso “emphasized the fact that the plaintiffs had not only 

failed to state a claim against the defendants, but also could not have stated a claim under the 

Case 3:19-cv-00331-LB Document 22 Filed 03/18/19 Page 10 of 12
ORDER – No. 19-cv-00331-LB 11

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

Northern District of California

2. Application

The defendants here have not met their “heavy burden” to show that Mr. Angold “cannot be 

liable on any theory” and that Ms. Finnan’s claim against him is “wholly insubstantial and 

frivolous.” Cf. Grancare, 889 F.3d at 548–50. For example, Ms. Finnan pleads (among other 

claims) a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) against Mr. Angold. Ms. 

Finnan’s complaint and Ms. Frades’s declaration (which Ms. Finnan could amend her complaint to 

include, and thus which the court must consider, Grancare, 889 F.3d at 550) allege that Mr. 

Angold opposed hiring Ms. Finnan because of her age, gender, and appearance, instead wanted to 

hire “T&A” for her position, and after Zurich hired her, discriminated against her and excluded 

her from opportunities offered to other employees — and ultimately terminated her — based on 

her age, gender, and appearance. This may potentially plead an IIED claim. Cf., e.g., De Ruiz v. 

Courtyard Mgmt. Corp., No. C 06-03198 WHA, 2006 WL 2053505, at *4 (N.D. Cal. July 21, 

2006) (“‘Behavior may be considered outrageous, and sufficient to sustain an IIED claim, if a 

defendant abuses a relation or position which gives him power to damage the plaintiff’s 

interest.’”) (internal brackets omitted) (quoting Agarwal v. Johnson, 25 Cal. 3d 932, 946 (1979)); 

Gibson v. Am. Airlines, No. C 96-1444 FMS, 1996 WL 329632, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 1996)

(allegations that defendants “at all times intended to terminate plaintiff and not allow her to 

advance” and denied plaintiff rights that were given to other employees could plead an IIED 

claim).

Because the defendants have not shown that Mr. Angold was fraudulently joined and because 

there is no diversity of citizenship between Ms. Finnan and Mr. Angold, remand is appropriate.70

 

circumstances of that case.” Umamoto v. Insphere Ins. Sols., Inc., No. 13-CV-0475-LHK, 2013 WL 

2084475, at *7 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2013) (emphasis in original) (citing Kruso, 872 F.2d at 1427). 

“Kruso thus reaffirmed the overarching principle that, absent some special circumstances, only a 

categorical defect in the plaintiff’s claims would support a finding of fraudulent joinder.” Tang v. 

Rosenwald, No. CV-16-01317-MWF-PLA, 2016 WL 1715183, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2016). The 

defendants’ argument is squarely foreclosed by Grancare, in which the Ninth Circuit held that courts 

must consider whether a plaintiff could amend her complaint to plead a claim against a non-diverse 

defendant in determining whether that defendant was fraudulently joined. Grancare, 889 F.3d at 550.

70 Ms. Finnan also requests her attorney’s fees and costs in moving to remand. Pl. Remand Mot. – ECF 

No. 10 at 2. A defendant who removes a case improperly may be sanctioned under Rule 11 and 28 

U.S.C. § 1447. In particular, Section 1447(c) provides that “[a]n order remanding the case may require 

Case 3:19-cv-00331-LB Document 22 Filed 03/18/19 Page 11 of 12
ORDER – No. 19-cv-00331-LB 12

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

Northern District of California

CONCLUSION

The court grants Ms. Finnan’s motion and remands the case to the Superior Court for the 

County of Marin. The court denies defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot, without prejudice to 

any motion the defendants might bring before the state court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18, 2019

______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

 

payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the 

removal.” Awarding fees in this situation is discretionary, and they may be awarded only if such an 

award is “just.” See Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 136, 138 (2005). “Absent unusual 

circumstances, courts may award attorney’s fees under § 1447(c) only where the removing party 

lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.” Id. at 141. Thus, “when an objectively 

reasonable basis exists, fees should be denied.” Id. “A district court has broad discretion under this 

provision.” Calero v. Unisys Corp., 271 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1182 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (citing Moore v. 

Permanente Med. Grp., Inc., 981 F.2d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 1992)). The court in its discretion declines to 

award costs or fees here.

Case 3:19-cv-00331-LB Document 22 Filed 03/18/19 Page 12 of 12