Court Opinion

ID: 9406147
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-30 00:00:26.28468+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:27.303351
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30696         Document: 00516805111             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/29/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                          United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                           Fifth Circuit

                                      ____________                                       FILED
                                                                                      June 29, 2023
                                       No. 22-30696                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                      ____________                                         Clerk

   Matthew Derbes,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   State of Louisiana, through Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry,
   Department of Justice,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Middle District of Louisiana
                                USDC No. 3:21-CV-710
                      ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          The State of Louisiana appeals the district court’s order remanding
   the underlying action to state court and awarding $2,312.50 in attorneys’ fees
   and costs to the plaintiff on the basis that Louisiana lacked an objectively
   reasonable basis for removal. Because the district court did not abuse its
   discretion, we AFFIRM.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30696      Document: 00516805111           Page: 2    Date Filed: 06/29/2023

                                     No. 22-30696

                                          I.
          Matthew Derbes filed charges of discrimination with the Equal
   Employment Opportunity Commission and Louisiana Commission on
   Human Rights alleging retaliation by his employer, the Louisiana Attorney
   General, after he reported several instances of sexual harassment of other
   employees who had reported it to him. Several months later, Derbes filed a
   petition in state court alleging defamation and retaliation/reprisal in violation
   of Louisiana law after he reported various acts of misconduct. Louisiana filed
   a notice of removal to federal court on December 15, 2021, alleging federal
   question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343. On December 21, 2021,
   Derbes filed a motion to remand, which Louisiana opposed.
          The district court found that Louisiana did not have an objectively
   reasonable basis for removal. The district court also found that Derbes’
   petition clearly indicated it did not assert a Title VII claim by explicitly
   reserving the right to later assert one. Further, the district court said, “[t]he
   Plaintiff’s allegations make clear that plaintiff was only asserting state law
   claims.   Moreover, the very cases upon which Defendant relies in its
   opposition to the motion to remand should have informed the Defendant that
   there was no federal jurisdiction.” Because it determined there was no
   objectively reasonable basis for removal, the district asserted its discretion to
   award attorney’s fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). As a result, the district
   court adopted the detailed Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation,
   granted the motion to remand, and granted Derbes’ request for attorneys’
   fees and costs of $2,312.50.
                                          II.
          On appeal, Louisiana argues that it was objectively reasonable in its
   removal of this matter to federal court and should not have to pay attorneys’
   fees and costs. We disagree. After a thorough review of the briefs, the

                                          2
Case: 22-30696     Document: 00516805111          Page: 3   Date Filed: 06/29/2023

                                   No. 22-30696

   pleadings and the applicable law, we conclude that the district court did not
   abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees and costs of $2,312.50 based
   on its assessment that Louisiana’s removal was objectively unreasonable. See
   Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005); see also American
   Airlines, Inc. v. Sabre, Inc., 694 F.3d 539, 544 (5th Cir. 2012). AFFIRMED.

                                         3