The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DANIEL BROWN, III CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO: 23-7248
MARTEN TRANSPORT, LTD., ET SECTION: “J”(4)
AL.
ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion to Remand (Rec. Doc. 5) filed by Plaintiff,
Daniel Brown, III and an opposition thereto (Rec. Doc. 6) filed by Defendant,
Marten Transport LTD, Inc. (“Marten”). Having considered the motion, the legal
memoranda, the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the motion
should be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
This suit arises out of a motor vehicle accident between Plaintiff and Willie
Brown (“Brown”), an employee of Marten Transport, Ltd. (“Marten”). Plaintiff
claims that Brown caused the accident through his negligence while operating a
vehicle owned by Marten during the course and scope of his employment. On
August 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed a petition in the Civil District Court for the Parish of
Orleans that named Marten, Ace American Insurance Company (“Ace”), and Brown
as Defendants. Plaintiff Brown and Defendant Brown are both citizens of the state
of Louisiana. Defendant Marten is incorporated in the state of Delaware with its
principal place of business in Wisconsin. Defendant Ace is incorporated in the state
of Pennsylvania with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania.
On December 8, 2023, before Defendant Brown was served, Marten removed
the case to this Court, “asserting that removal was proper under the forum-
defendant rule because Brown, a citizen of the forum state, had not been served.”
(Rec. Doc. 6, at 3). However, Marten now acknowledges that there is no complete
diversity of citizenship between the parties and states that it “confuse[d] the
jurisdictional requirement of complete diversity with the procedural character of
snap removal.” Id. (quoting Baptiste v. Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co., L.L.C., No. 22-96,
2022 WL 950704, at *2 (E.D. La. Mar. 30, 2022)). Accordingly, as both parties now
concede, this matter must be remanded for further proceedings to the Civil District
Court for the Parish of Orleans.
Plaintiff also asserts that because of the time and expense devoted to
preparing the instant motion to remand, this Court should award him attorney’s
fees and costs as allowed by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The United States Supreme Court
set forth the standard for awarding attorney’s fees under § 1447(c):
[T]he standard for awarding fees should turn on the reasonableness of
the removal. Absent unusual circumstances, courts may award
attorney's fees under § 1447(c) only where the removing party lacked
an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal. Conversely, when
an objectively reasonable basis exists, fees should be denied. In
applying this rule, district courts retain discretion to consider whether
unusual circumstances warrant a departure from the rule in a given
case. For instance, a plaintiff's delay in seeking remand or failure to
disclose facts necessary to determine jurisdiction may affect the
decision to award attorney's fees. When a court exercises its discretion
in this manner, however, its reasons for departing from the general
rule should be “faithful to the purposes” of awarding fees under §
1447(c).
Marten v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005) (citations omitted).
Marten argues that their removal was neither frivolous nor in bad faith, but instead
constituted a mistake of law which many other litigants have made before. Marten
points to Baptiste v. Ritz-Carlton Hotel in which Judge Milazzo of this District
evaluated an identical mistake in removal and declined to award attorney’s fees and
costs. Judge Milazzo reasoned that previous litigants have made the same mistake
of confusing the law of snap removal and the forum-defendant rule and therefore
could not find that the defendant totally lacked an objectively reasonable basis for
seeking removal. Jd. at *5. Likewise, in this case, Marten freely acknowledges that
it made an error in removing this action and that this Court lacks jurisdiction over
the matter. In requesting attorney’s fees, Plaintiff does not assert that Marten
engaged in any bad faith or even perpetrated any particularly egregious or
uncommon mistake. Therefore, this Court cannot find reason to penalize Marten for
a mistake countless litigants have made in other cases.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand
(Rec. Doc. 5) is GRANTED in part, and the case is REMANDED to the Civil
District Court, Orleans Parish. However, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED as to his
request for attorney’s fees and costs.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 28th day of March, 2024.
CARL J. BA R
UNITED ST S DISTRICT JUDGE