Falconi-Sachs v. Lpf Senate Square, LLC
963 F. Supp. 2d 1
D.D.C.2013Background
- Plaintiff Maia Falconi-Sachs sued LPF Senate Square, LLC and Bozzuto Management Co. in D.C. Superior Court for claims arising from her residence at Senate Square.
- Complaint sought various relief but explicitly disclaimed any damages above $74,999.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court on August 16, 2012; they then moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
- Plaintiff moved to remand; the district court granted remand on January 29, 2013 and denied the dismissal motion as moot.
- Plaintiff then moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) for an award of attorneys’ fees incurred because of the removal; the court found defendants’ removal objectively unreasonable and granted the fee motion, referring the amount to Magistrate Judge Facciola.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal was objectively reasonable | Removal was improper because complaint disclaimed damages above $74,999, so diversity amount not met | Removal was permitted (implicit argument that federal jurisdiction existed or removal was reasonable) | Court held removal was objectively unreasonable because plaintiff’s explicit disclaimer made non-removability obvious |
| Whether attorneys’ fees should be awarded under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) | Fees are justified because defendants lacked an objectively reasonable basis and removal wasted resources | Fees not warranted if removal was reasonable or made in good faith | Court granted fees as a proper deterrent and ordered determination of amount by magistrate |
| Burden of proof on jurisdiction in removal context | Plaintiff relied on the complaint’s disclaimer to rebut diversity amount | Defendant bore the burden to establish jurisdiction | Court reiterated defendant’s burden and the presumption against removal; doubts resolved in favor of remand |
| Appropriate remedy and procedure for quantifying fees | Plaintiff requested reasonable fees and costs; provided time records | Defendants would contest amount later | Court referred fee-amount determination to Magistrate Judge Facciola under Local Rule 72.2 |
Key Cases Cited
- Knop v. Mackall, 645 F.3d 381 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (awards under § 1447(c) require that removal lacked an objectively reasonable basis)
- Hood v. F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd., 639 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2009) (removing party bears burden of establishing federal jurisdiction)
- St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (presumption against federal jurisdiction on amount in controversy)
- District of Columbia v. 2626 Naylor Road, S.E. Wash., D.C. 20020, 763 F. Supp. 2d 5 (D.D.C. 2011) (doubts about subject-matter jurisdiction resolved in favor of remand)
- Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) (fee awards under § 1447(c) serve to deter improper removals)