2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-17-2005 

# H amme r v . S cott P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-2243

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" H amme r v

. S c ott " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 997. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/997- 1- NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT
N o. 04- 2243
M IC H A E L H A M M E R ; M IC H E L L E H A M M E R , H U S B A N D A N D W IF E ; DA VI D G
. NO VA TNA K; PATRI CI A N OV ATN AK , HU SBAN D A ND W I FE; G E O R G E U R IT IS ; JO A N N E U R IT IS , H U S B A N D A N D W IF E ;

WEND Y YUE NGL I NG,

v. CH AR L E S C. S CO T T , BO T H I NDI VI DUAL L Y AND I N HI S CA P AC I T Y AS P E R S O N A L R E P R E S E N T A T IV E O F T H E E S T A T E O F A N N A R . S C O T T ; BO RO UG H O F CRESS ON A, SCHU YLK I LL CO UN TY, PENN SYLV AN I A, AN D I TS BO RO UG H C OU NC I L; T OWNS HI P OF NOR T H M ANHE I M , S CH UYL KI L L CO UNT Y, P E NNS YL VANI A, A N D I TS B O A RD O F SU PER V I SO RS, C H A R L E S C . S C O T T , A ppel l ant
O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C
. N o. 01- cv- 01964) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le Jam es F . M cC lure, Jr.
Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL . A
. R . 34. 1( a)

J une 2, 2005 B efore: F U E N T E S , G R E E N B E R G , and C O W E N , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: J une 17, 2005 )- 2- OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge. A ppel l antC har l es C
. Scot tappea l s an orde r of t he D i s t r i ct C our t di r ect i ng hi m t o pay $2, 000 as hi s s har e of the r ei m bur s emen t to the Pl ai nt i ffs
- A ppel l ees fort hei rcos t s and expens es , pur s uantt o 28 U
. S. C
. § 1447( c) , i ncurr ed i n t he def ec ti v e r emoval of thi s cas e. Scot tal l eges t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n as s es s i ng fee s on hi m w her e ther e w as no evi dence t hathe ac t ed i n bad fai t h, fr i vol ous l yorw i t houtr eas onabl e bas i s i n t he r emoval of t he ca s e. I n addi t i on, Scot tcont ends t hathe s houl d notbe hel d i ndi vi dual l yr es pons i bl e for t he fe es , as he w as a part yt o t he r emoval onl yi n hi s capa ci t yas per s onal r epr es ent at i ve of t he Est at e of A nna R . Scot t . Fort he fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m t he or derof the D istric t C o u rt. I. F a cts B ecause w e w ri t e o n ly f o r the p art i es, w e reci t e on l yt he essenti al fact s. P l ai nti ffs,
w ho ar e l andow ner s i n a subdi vi s i on, comm ence d t hi s act i on on A ugus t 23, 2001 byfi l i ng a ni ne- countcompl ai ntagai ns tm ul t i pl e def endant s i n t he C our tof C om m on Pl eas of Schuy l ki l l C ount y , Penns y l vani a. T he mat t erar i s es outof a di s put e r egar di ng t he condi t i on of a s t r eets ervi ng t he s ubdi vi s i on w her e Pl ai nt i ffs r es i de. O n O c to b e r 1 2 , 2 0 0 1 , o n e o f th e D e f e n d a n ts – B o ro u g h o f

C r e ss o n a , S c h u y lk ill C ount y , Penns y l vani a – fi l ed a not i ce of r emoval t o t he D i s t r i ct C our t for t he M i ddl e D i s t r i ct28 U . S
. C
. § 1 44 7(c) provides i n p ert i n ent par tt hat “[a] n o rderrem and i ng t he case 1 m ayr equi r e paym ent of j us t cos t s and anyactual expens es , i ncl udi ng at t or neyfee s , i ncurr ed a s a re s u lt o f

th e re m o v a l.” O r di nar i l y , an or derr emandi ng a mat t ert o s t at e cour t w i l l di ves ta di s t r i ctcour tof 2 j ur i s di ct i on t o ent er t ai n fur t her i s s ues r el at ed t o t he proc eedi ng. H ow ever , as w e expl ai ned i n M i nt s v. E duc. T es t i ng Ser v. , 99 F. 3d 1253, 1257- 58 ( 3d C i r . 1996) , t he di s t r i ctcour tm ay r et ai n j u ri sd ict ion t o aw ar d cos t s and expe ns es pur s uantt o 28 U
. S. C
. § 1447( c) even a ft er th e m a tte r h a s b e e n p ro p e rl yre m a n d e d
.

- 3- of Penns y l vani a pr emi s ed on fede r al ques t i on j ur i s di ct i on, 28 U
. S. C
. § 1331. Pl ai nt i ffs had
as s er t ed, among ot her s , cl ai m s under 42 U . S. C
. § 1983. T her eaf t er , Pl ai nt i ffs fi l ed a mot i on t o r emand t he mat t ert o s t at e courtor , i n t he alt ern ati ve, t o r emand cer t ai n cl ai m s and s t ay f e d e ra l cla im s p e n d in g th e c o m p letio n o f th e sta te c o u rt p ro c e e d in g s. A f ter a m a g istra te j udge i s s ued hi s r epor t r ecomm endi ng r emand, t he D i s t r i ct C our t ent er ed an or der of r emand on Sept ember 26, 2002 on t he grounds t hatr emoval had bee n pr ocedur al l ydefe ct i ve as t he
cou rthad no trecei ved con sent s for r em ov al from al l of the D efen dan t s. I n addi t i on, al t hough i t f o u n d tha tt her e w as no evi dence of bad f ai t h and thatt he D efe ndan ts’ d eci s i on t o r emove w as r eas onabl e, the D i s t r i ctC our tnonethel es s found that Pl ai nt i ffs w er e ent i t l ed pur s uantt o 28 U
. S. C
. § 1447( c) t o cos t s and expe ns es , i ncl udi ng at t orneyfees, i ncu rr ed as a res ult of t he d efecti ve rem ov al
. A ft er the p art i es fi l ed af fi dav i t s, 1 th e D istric t C o u rt a ss e ss e d $ 6 ,0 0 0 in f e e s, o f w h ich $ 2 ,0 0 0 w a s c h a rg e d to S c o tt i n h is i ndi vi dual capa ci t yas w el l as i n hi s capa ci t yas per s onal r epr es ent at i ve of the Est at e of A nna R . Scot t . Scot tnow appea l s t he fe e aw ar d.

2 I I . D i s cus s i onA s an i ni t i al m at t er , w e re j ect Pl ai nt i ffs ’ cont ent i on t hatt he i s s ue of the aw ar d of fe es 3 p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S
. C
. § 1 4 4 7 (c), as op p o sed to th e am o u n t o f th e fe es, i s n o t pro p erlyb ef o re t he C our t . U nt i l t he fe es had bee n quant i fi ed byt he D i s t r i ctC ourt , S co tt w as noti n a pos i t i on t o br i ng an appe al t o t hi s C ou rt . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l r evi ew bot h t he D i s t r i ct C ou rt ’ s Sept ember26, 2002 and A pr i l 5, 2004 or der s i n det erm i ni ng w hetherScot tw as p ro p e rl ya s s e s s e d f

e e s .

- 4- W e have j ur i s di ct i on under 28 U . S. C
. § 1291 t o ent er t ai n Scot t ’ s appea l
. W e r evi ew
an aw ar d of fees under 28 U . S. C
. § 1447( c) for an abuse of di s cr et i on. See R oxbur yC ondo. A s s ’ n, I nc. v. A nt honyS. C upo A gency , 316 F. 3d 224, 226 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ; M i nt s , 99 F. 3d at1260. A di s t r i ctcour tabus es i t s di s cr et i on by bas i ng i t s deci s i on on a “c l ear l yerr oneous f in d in g o f f a c t, a n e rr o n e o u s le g a l c o n c lu s io n , o r a n im p ro p e r a p p lic a tio n o f la w to f a c t.” R o x b u ry C o n d o . A s s ’n , 3 1 6 F .3 d a t 2 2 6 (c ita tio n a n d q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). S co ttco n tend s tha t th e D istri ct C o u rterred in aw ard ing co sts an d ex p en ses w h ere t her e w as no evi dence t hatt he D efe ndant s had ac t ed i n bad fa i t h i n r emovi ng t he ca s e, and wh e r e t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r ti t s e l f n o t e d t h a tt h e d e c i s i o n t o r e mo v e wa s r e a s o n a b l e . As we 3 have not ed bef

or e, a di s t r i ct cour t has “br oad di s cr et i on and maybe fl exi bl e i n det erm i ni ng
w hethert o r equi r e the paym ent of fee s under [28 U . S. C
. § 1447( c) ]
. ” M i nt s , 99 F. 3d at1260. A sh o w ing o f b ad fa ith is no t a p rereq u isi te f o r a n aw ard o f fe es u n d er 2 8 U . S
. C
. § 1 4 4 7 (c), al t hough i t m ay be a cons i der at i on. I d. I n t hi s m at t er , t he D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed thatt he def ect i n rem ov al w as not s ub st anti ve, as i tw as cl ear that federal qu est i on j uri sdi ct i on w ou l d ex i st under28 U
. S. C
. § 1331 fors om e of Pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m s . N onethel es s , t he mannerof r emoval
w as found def

ect i ve i ns ofaras unani m ous orexpr es s cons ent fr om al l D efe ndant s w as found- 5-

l acki ng. O n the re co rd b ef

o re u s, w e f

ind n o ab u se o f d iscreti o n in th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s deci s i on. I tis w ell -est abl i s hed thatr emoval , s ubj ectt o onl ya fe w exce pt i ons , r equi r es unani m i t yamong t he def endant s . See B al azi k v. C ount yof D auphi n, 44 F. 3d 209, 213 ( 3d C i r . 1995)
. I n t hi s cas e, t he D efe ndantB or ough of C r es s ona fi l ed a not i ce of r emoval al ong wi t h t wo “ Ce r t i f

i c a t e o f Co n c u r r e n c e ” c e r t i f y i n g t h a t t h e o t h e rt wo De f e n d a n t s – Ch a r l e s C. Scot ti n hi s capa ci t y as r epr es ent at i ve of the Est at e of A nna R . Scot t , and the Tow ns hi p of N o rth M a n h e im , S c h u y lk ill C o u n ty , P e n n sy lv a n ia – c o n c u rre d in th e re m ov al
. A greei ng w i th t he rep o rtof the m agis t rat e, t he D i stri ctC ou rtfou nd t he ex press i on of the D efen dan t s’
u n a n im o u s c o n se n t to b e lac k in g to th e e x ten t th a t th e B o ro u g h o f C re ss o n a w a s s e e k in g to
r epr es entt o t he courtt hatt he otherD efe n d an ts c o n curr ed i n t he r emoval
. E . g. , C ar t erv. In g e rso ll-R a n d C o ., In c ., 2 0 0 1 W L 2 3 8 5 4 0 a t * 2 (E .D . P a . M a r. 1 2 , 2 0 0 1 ) (“ C o u rts
cons i s t ent l yhave r equi r ed ea ch def endantt o expr ess i t s pos i t i on t o t he courtdi r ect l y , and h a v e h e ld th a t o n e d e f e n d a n t’s a lleg a tio n th a t an o th e r d e f e n d a n t jo in s in re m o v a l is in su f f icie n t.”). A c c o rd in g ly, a lth o u g h th e f ili n g o f th e n o tice o f

re m o v a l w a s re a so n a b le gi ven the exi s t ence of ce r t ai n fede r al cl ai m s , t he met hod and mannerof r emoval w as found t o be def

ect i ve. I n s uch ci r cumst ance s , Pl ai nt i ffs w er e r eq u ir ed to f i l e mot i ons s eeki ng
r emand befor e both t he magi s t r at e j udge and D i s tr i ctC our t , t her ebyi ncurr i ng expens es as
a res ultof D efen dan t s’ defe ct i ve rem ov al
. D i stri ct cou rt s possess broad d i scr et i on t o ad dress the re im b u rsem en t o f co sts in prec isel y thes e typ es of situ ati o n s. S ee 2 8 U . S
. C
. § 1 4 4 7 (c).- 6-

S c o tt’s se c o n d c o n ten tio n o n a p p e a l is th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in a ss e ss in g c o sts and expe ns es agai ns thi m i n hi s i ndi vi dual capa ci t y beca us e at t he t i m e t he not i ce of r emoval
w as fi l ed on O ct ober 12, 2001, he w as l i s t ed as a defe ndant onl yi n hi s capa ci t yas per s onal
re p re se n tativ e o f

th e E sta te o f

A n n a R . S c o tt. S c o tt w a s n o t ad d e d to th e p ro c e e d in g in h is i ndi vi dual capa ci t yunt i l aft ert he Pl ai nt i ffs m oved t o r emand and aft er t he m agi s t r at e j udge
m ade hi s r epor tand r ecomm endat i on. W e not e, how ever , t hat aft er i tbeca m e appa r entt hat t her e w as a pot ent i al defe ct i n t he mannerof r emoval , Scot tpr ocee ded t o oppos e r emand not j us ti n hi s r epr es ent at i ve ca paci t y , buti n hi s i ndi vi d u al c ap aci t yas w el l
. I n par t i cul ar , on M ay7, 2002, Scot tfi l ed a mot i on t o decl ar e Pl ai nt i ffs ’ m ot i on t o r emand m oot . I n addi t i on,
on D ecem ber 2, 20 02 , S cottj oint l yfi l ed w i t h the other D efen dan t s a r eplybri ef t o P l ai nti ffs’ br i ef i n oppos i t i on t o t hei r m ot i on for r econs i der at i on. I n bot h pl eadi ngs , Scot tpar t i ci pat ed i n t he oppos i t i on t o r emand i n hi s i ndi vi dual capa ci t y . A ccor di ngl y , beca us e Scot tent er ed t he di s put e r egar di ng r emand i n hi s i ndi vi dual capa ci t y , w e can fi nd no err ori n t he D i s t r i ct C o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n t o a s s e s s f e e s a g a i n s th i m i n t h a tc a p a c i t y. W e addr es s one fi nal i s s ue r ai s ed byt he appe al
. Pl ai nt i ffs cont end th at t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt sh o u ld h a v e a w a rd e d th e m a lar g e r a m o u n t in a tto rn e yf e e s, a n d th a t ac c o rd in g ly“ th is C our ts houl d i ncr eas e the fe e aw ar d. ” ( A ppel l ees ’ B r . at 6. ) W e, how ever , decl i ne t o do s o. H avi ng fai l ed t o fi l e a c r os s - appea l fr om t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der , w e fi n d thatPl ai nt i ffs cannot now cont end t hat t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s aw ar d w as i n err or . See U ni t ed St at es v. T abor C o u rt R e a lty C o rp ., 9 4 3 F .2 d 3 3 5 , 3 4 3 , 3 4 4 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 1 ) (n o tin g th a t alth o u g h th e p rin c ip le- 7-

i s s ubj ectt o cert ai n exce pt i ons , “an a ppel l ee w ho has notfi l ed a t i m el y cr os s - appea l m aynot at t ack the dec r ee w i t h a vi ew ei t hert o enl ar gi ng hi s ow n r i ght s t her eunderorof l es s eni ng t he ri g h ts of h is ad v ersa ry ”) (cit ati o n s o m itted). I I I . C oncl usi on W e have cons i der ed al l of t he ar gum ent s advanc ed by t he par t i es and conc l ude that
n o fu rt h er di s cus s i on i s nece s s ary . A ccor di ngl y , t he or derof the D i s t r i ctC our tw i l l be aff i r m ed.