Opinion ID: 734281
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the district court err in awarding fees and costs to Excell?

Text: 15 Sterling argues the district court erred in awarding fees and costs to Excell under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Specifically, Sterling argues it acted in good faith in seeking removal of the action and had a legitimate basis for doing so. 16 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) provides: An order remanding [a] case may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal. In deciding whether to award costs under § 1447(c), the key factor is the propriety of defendant's removal. Daleske v. Fairfield Communities, 17 F.3d 321, 324 (10th Cir.), cert. denied 511 U.S. 1082, 114 S.Ct. 1832, 128 L.Ed.2d 461 (1994). The district court does not have to find that the state court action has been removed in bad faith as a prerequisite to awarding attorney fees and costs under § 1447(c). Id. 17 Here, the district court noted Excell's counsel asked Sterling to voluntarily remand the case, but that Sterling refused to do so even though it acknowledged the case would likely be remanded by the district court. The district court concluded: 18 The law regarding [forum selection] clauses, as set forth in Milk 'N' More, is well settled and binding within the Tenth Circuit. Nonetheless, defendant refused voluntarily to remand the case despite numerous opportunities to do so. Hence, I exercise my discretion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447(c) and award plaintiff fees and costs incurred as a result of defendant's improper removal. 19 916 F.Supp. at 1066. 20 For the reasons set forth in our analysis of the forum selection clause, we agree with the district court and conclude Sterling had little or no basis for seeking removal of this action. Accordingly, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding costs to Excell under § 1447(c). 21 The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.