606 F. App'x 279
6th Cir.2015Background
- AFR and its parent TIA sued Pennfield in Michigan state court alleging violations of the Just Compensation and Due Process Clauses.
- Pennfield removed to federal court six days later and moved to dismiss as unripe; the district court remanded and awarded fees to AFR/TIA in the amount of $7,720.
- Plaintiffs’ complaint included a federal takings claim and a due-process claim that were argued to be unripe under Williamson County ripeness rules.
- District court found Pennfield lacked an objectively reasonable basis for removal and that Pennfield acted in bad faith to delay the litigation.
- The district court determined the fee award was warranted under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) due to unusual circumstances, independent of objective reasonableness.
- On appeal, Pennfield challenges only the attorney’s-fee award; the Sixth Circuit affirms, upholding the district court’s bad-faith finding and fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pennfield had an objectively reasonable basis for removal | AFR/TIA: no objective basis given ripeness barriers | Pennfield: removal based on federal questions present in the complaint | No objective basis; removal was not reasonably grounded |
| Whether unusual circumstances justify awarding fees despite objective reasonableness | AFR/TIA: none; no unusual circumstances to override standard rule | Pennfield argues no bad faith, so no unusual delay | Unusual-circumstance exception applied; fee awarded due to bad faith/intent to prolong litigation |
| Whether Williamson County ripeness is a jurisdictional requirement or a prudential one and affects removal posture | AFR/TIA argues prudential ripeness undermines removal viability | Pennfield: ripeness issues undermine removal viability | Ripeness is prudential in some contexts; court need not resolve jurisdictional question here |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (U.S. 2005) (objectively reasonable basis default rule for §1447(c) fees with possible departures)
- Warthman v. Genoa Twp. Bd. of Trs., 549 F.3d 1055 (6th Cir. 2008) (abuse of discretion standard for §1447(c) awards)
- Eastman v. Marine Mech. Corp., 438 F.3d 544 (6th Cir. 2006) (test for federal-question jurisdiction and removal propriety)
- Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983) (establishes the scope of federal-question jurisdiction in removal)
- Horne v. Dep’t of Agric., 133 S. Ct. 2053 (U.S. 2013) (ripeness as prudential, not strictly jurisdictional)
- San Remo Hotel v. City and Cnty. of San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323 (U.S. 2005) (ripeness considerations and state-court alternatives for takings claims)
- Wilkins v. Daniels, 744 F.3d 409 (6th Cir. 2014) (recognizes jurisdictional flexibility in unripe takings claims)