Plaintiff urges the Court to award its fees and costs in defending against the instant
motion. Since the removal remains improper and defending this Motion was part of Plaintiff's
duties in obtaining the remand, the Court will additionally award Plaintiff its reasonable fees and
costs associated with responding to this motion. Plaintiff will have until August 5, 2004 to
submit a supplemental itemization of fees and costs. Defendant is given until August 13, 2004 to

file detailed objections, if any, to Plaintiffs supplemental itemization of fees and costs.'

Enter:

David H. Coar
United States District Judge

Dated: July 29, 2004

‘ Defendant is reminded that it has until July 30, 2004 to file its objections to the original
itemization of fees and costs that Plaintiff submitted on July 22, 2004. If no objections to the
original itemization is received by that date, the Defendant waives the right to make any such
objections.


Mynute Orde, sim (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Jud Sitting Judge i
pr Magistrate Judge David H. Coar thant Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 04 C 3145 DATE 7/29/2004
CASE Sauer-Danfoss, Inc. vs, Hansen
TITLE

of the motion being presented. ]

[In the following box (a) indicate the parly filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) tate briefly the nature

COFRCP4(m) OLocal Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a)(1) 0 FRCP41(a)(2).

supplemental fees and costs in the amount sought will be issue¢-This case is CLO

MOTION:
Defendant’s Motion to Alter or Amend
DOCKET ENTRY:
(ly O Filed motion of { use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) Qa Brief in support of motion due.
(3) Q Answer brief to motion due____. Reply to answer brief due
(4) a Ruling/Hearingon___—__sset for___—_at
(5) a} Status hearing(held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__——sset for sat
(6) a Pretrial conference(held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__setfor__— at__
(7) a) Trial[set for/re-set for]on___at
(8) Qa (Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to__—at__
(9) a This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

(10) a [Other docket entry] For the reasons set forth in the attached memorandum opinion, Defendant’s
Motion to Alter or Amend is denied. Plaintiff is also awarded its costs and fees associated with defending
this motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Plaintiff must submit a supplemental itemization of costs
and fees by August 5, 2004, The Defendant is given until August 14, 2004 to file detailed objections to
any of the supplemental fees and costs. If no objections are received by August 14, an order awarding

ED.
(1) [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.] | OLA

Y | Nonotices required, advised in open court

No notices required

Document
Number

number of notices

Notices mailed by judge's stall, 1
jUL 32 200

Notified counsel by telephone. UL 38 Silt

Decketing t0 mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form cherdind apis ni

Copy to judge/magisirate judge. 4

date mailed novice
courtroom

jar(Ic) deputy’s
initials

62 Tar eOR

Date/tinig ‘received in 5 ~
central Clerk’s- Offices

wailing deputy inials



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
SAUER-DANFOSS INC., )
) No. 04C 3145
Plaintiff, )
) HONORABLE DAVID H. COAR
v. )
) 1 fioetoe
NIELS ERIK HANSEN. )
)
)
Defendant. )

JUL § 6 20u4
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This case comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Alter or-Amend J udgment

pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons set forth below, the
Court denies Defendant’s Motion in its entirety and awards Plaintiff costs and fees associated
with defending the motion.
1. BACKGROUND

On July 8, 2004, this case was remanded back to state court because the Defendant, Niels
Erik Hansen, did not timely file his notice of removal. At the time of the untimely removal, the
Defendant had filed a special and limited appearance in state court for the purposes of quashing
the service of process against him. The Plaintiff had obtained leave of the court to seek an
alternative form of service because the Defendant was deliberately avoiding Plaintiff's efforts to
obtain service. Defendant removed the case to this court the day before the state court was set to
tule on the service issue.

Defendant received alternative service pursuant to the court order on February 17, 2004.



This would have given him until March 18, 2004 to remove the case to federal court; Defendant
did not remove the case until May 3, 2004. The removal was therefore untimely and the case
was remanded back to state court.

Il. DEFENDANT’S RULE 59 MOTION

Defendant now has filed a motion to alter or amend the order remanding the case to state
court. Subsequent to the remand order, on July 20, the state court quashed the order granting the
Plaintiff permission to obtain service through an alternative method. Defendant asserts that the
Court should either vacate its remand order in its entirety because the service was faulty or vacate
that portion of the order awarding Plaintiff costs and fees incurred in seeking the remand.

As this Court noted in its order remanding the case to state court, the propriety of the
service under state rules in this case did not alter the time for filing a notice of removal. “If it
was clear from the state court complaint that the case was removable (a subject that will be
addressed below), then the Defendant is confronted with the choice to either remove the case
within thirty days to federal court or to fight the complaint (including the method of service) in
state court.” Order of July 8, 2004, at 4. The subsequent determination that the state court
method of service was untimely provides no basis for this Court to vacate the order in its entirety.

Defendant alternatively moves this Court to vacate that portion of its order awarding
Plaintiff costs and fees incurred in seeking the remand. The state court ruling on the propriety of
the alternative method of service is of no particular moment to the decision to award Plaintiff
recovery of its costs and fees seeking the remand. Defendant untimely and improperly filed a
notice of removal and this Court awarded Plaintiff its costs and fees associated with seeking a

remand. Subsequent developments aré completely irrelevant to this court.