Court Opinion

ID: 9956300
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-01 19:00:44.538286+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:51.035895
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-13843    Document: 28-1     Date Filed: 04/01/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-13843
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       MARK WALTERS,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       OPENAI, L.L.C.,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Georgia
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-03122-MLB
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-13843      Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 04/01/2024     Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  23-13843

       Before WILSON, JORDAN, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Mark Walters sued OpenAI, L.L.C., in state court for defa-
       mation. After OpenAI removed the case to federal court, the dis-
       trict court issued an order requiring OpenAI to show why the case
       should not be remanded to state court due to lack of diversity.
       OpenAI responded, but eventually withdrew its notice of removal.
              Mr. Walters then filed a motion for costs and fees pursuant
       to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). See D.E. 34. In its remand order, the district
       court denied the motion for fees and costs without explanation. See
       D.E. 39 (“The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Costs and At-
       torney’s Fees.”).
              We review the denial of fees and costs under § 1447(c) for
       abuse of discretion. See Booknight v. Monroe Cty., 446 F.3d 1327,
       1329 (11th Cir. 2006). In his brief, Mr. Walters argues that we must
       remand the case to the district court for it to provide some expla-
       nation for its denial of fees and costs. See Appellant’s Br. at 10-11.
                We agree. As a general matter, the standard for awarding
       fees and costs under § 1447(c) “turn[s] on the reasonableness of the
       removal.” Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005).
       But “[w]ithout any explanation for its denial of a request for fees
       [and costs], it is impossible for us to discern the correctness of the
       district court’s judgment. It is necessary, therefore, to remand the
       case to the district court for an explanation[.].” In re Trinity Indus-
       tries, Inc., 876 F.2d 1485, 1496 (11th Cir. 1989).
USCA11 Case: 23-13843   Document: 28-1   Date Filed: 04/01/2024   Page: 3 of 3

       23-13843           Opinion of the Court                     3

             VACATED and REMANDED.