Order Form (01/2005)
a United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois pet

ay
yf Assi Sitting Judge if Oth
sen Magistrate Judge John W. Darrah than Assigned Judge
7
CASE NUMBER 12 C 2680 DATE 10/4/12
CASE People of the State of Illinois v. Dale, et al.
TITLE

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Plaintiff's Motion to Remand [16] is granted. Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs [25] is
granted; Plaintiff shall submit an itemization of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred as a result of the
removal within seven days of the date of this Order. This case is remanded to the Circuit Court for the
Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, Kane County. After Plaintiff's attorneys’ fees and costs are resolved, this civil
case will be terminated.

Wi For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT

Defendant (who appears to also be known as Robert Dale, Robert Sperlazzo, or Robert Dale of the
House of Sperlazzo) has filed an Emergency Notice of Removal of an action filed by the People of the State
of Illinois, through the Kane County State’s Attorney, in state court. Defendant is a party to a lawsuit,
captioned Kane County Bar Association v. Robert Sperlazzo, which is currently pending in the Kane County
Circuit Court. In October 2011, Defendant removed the case to federal court. But Judge Shadur sua sponte
remanded the case to state court, holding that there was no basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction. Kane
County Bar Ass'n v. Sperlazzo, No. 11-cv-7472, Dkt. No. 7. Back in state court, Defendant filed a lawsuit,
alleging that judges presiding over a case pending against him acted contrary to the U.S. Constitution.
Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a criminal contempt of court proceeding against Defendant in People of the State
of Minios v. Dale, et al., Case No. 12 CC 4 (Kane County Circuit Court), alleging that in three separate cases,
Defendant has filed contemptuous documents. efendant now seeks to remove the contempt petition to this
Court. (See Dkt. No. 7-1 at 62-81 and Dkt. No. 7-2 at 2-11 (the “Contempt Petition”).

Defendant has asserted no valid grounds for removal. The removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, is
construed narrowly, and doubts concerning removal are resolved in favor of remand. Doe v. Allied-Signal,
Inc., 985 F.2d 908, 911 (7th Cir. 1993), The removing party bears the burden of proving by a preponderance
of the evidence that the elements of the Court’s jurisdiction are met. Meridian Sec. Ins. Co. v. Sadowski, 441
F.3d 536, 543 (7th Cir. 2006). If the district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the action must be
remanded to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Defendant argues that the Contempt Petition should
be removed because “a federal question is presented by Plaintiff's numerous references to exhibits where the
foundation of the alleged cone challenges the judiciary therein as having violated both the Illinois and
United States constitutions in stfstantidl due py ss.” (Resp. at 5.) Defendant is essentially arguing that the
three cases he filed in state court, naming wate judges as acting contrary to the U.S. Constitution,
contain federal questions. Therefore, Defendant argues, the instant contempt case that Plaintiff filed against

Page | of 2



STATEMENT

Defendant is also pervaded with federal questions that create a basis for federal-question jurisdiction.
Defendant's argument lacks merit.

Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, federal-question jurisdiction exists “only when a federal
question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams,
482 ULS. 386, 392 (1987) (Caterpillar); see Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152
(1908) (“[A] suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States only when the plaintiff's
statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon those laws or that Constitution.”). In the
contempt case, Plaintiff has not pleaded any violation of the Constitution or any violation of federal law.

Nor can Defendant establish diversity jurisdiction, which Defendant asserted as a basis for removal in
his Notice of Removal. The basis of Defendant’s argument is absurd. Defendant argued that he is one of the
people of the Illinois, which he asserts is a foreign nation to the United States. Defendant’s counsel
abandoned this argument, rightly so, in his Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. This argument, which
lacks merit anyhow, has been waived. See United States v. Tockes, 530 F.3d 628, 633 (7th Cir. 2008)
(“Unsupported and undeveloped arguments . . . are considered waived.”).

As Defendant has established no valid basis for federal jurisdiction, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand [16]
is granted. Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), which
provides, “An order remanding the case may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including
attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.” The Supreme Court held that a district court may award
attorneys’ fees under Section 1447(c) only where the removing party lacked an “objectively reasonable basis”
for seeking removal. Martin v. Franklin Capital, 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005). In the Seventh Circuit, the
general rule is:

[I]f, at the time the defendant filed his notice in federal court, clearly
established law demonstrated that he had no basis for removal, then a district
court should award a plaintiff his attorneys’ fees. By contrast, if clearly
established law did not foreclose a defendant’s basis for removal, then a district
court should not award attorneys’ fees.

Lott v. Pfizer, Inc., 492 F.3d 789, 793 (7th Cir. 2007). Here, there is no doubt that “clearly established law
demonstrated that [Defendant] had no basis for removal.” In his Notice of Removal, Defendant based his
grounds for removal on diversity jurisdiction, which had no basis in clearly established law. In his Response
to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, Defendant changed his basis for removal to federal-question jurisdiction,
which equally had no basis in clearly established law. Furthermore, from Judge Shadur’s ruling in Kane
County Bar Ass'n v. Sperlazzo, No. 11-cv-7472, Defendant was on notice of the strict requirements to remove
this case to federal court. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs [25] is granted;
Plaintiff shall submit an itemization of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred as a result of the removal
within seven days of the date of this Order.

Page 2 of 2