Wilmington Savings Fund Society v. Diaz, 1:20-cv-24306

Wilmington Savings Fund Society filed a residential foreclosure in state court; a final judgment of foreclosure was entered on October 3, 2018.
Defendant Rigoberto Diaz repeatedly sought to derail the foreclosure: he filed for bankruptcy multiple times (some petitions dismissed with prejudice) and removed the foreclosure action to federal court on prior occasions; each prior removal was remanded and each bankruptcy or removal postponed the foreclosure sale.
On October 20, 2020, Diaz removed the case to federal court again; Wilmington moved to remand and sought fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
Judge Scola remanded the case for a third time, found a "clear abuse of the removal process," and barred further removals without first obtaining leave of the Court; the fee request was referred to the Magistrate Judge.
The Magistrate recommended awarding Plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for the improper removal because Diaz lacked an objectively reasonable basis for removal and engaged in a pattern of delay; the Magistrate declined to award state-court foreclosure litigation fees but noted Plaintiff may seek interest caused by postponement.
Plaintiff was directed to file a detailed fee motion (time records and hourly rates); parties have 14 days to object to the Report and Recommendations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) should be awarded for the removal	Removal was objectively unreasonable and part of a pattern to delay foreclosure; fees are warranted	Removal alleged a constitutional violation and thus justified federal jurisdiction	Court: No objectively reasonable basis; award fees and costs related to removal recommended
Whether the prior bankruptcies/removals constitute an abuse of process supporting sanctions/limits	Pattern of multiple bankruptcies and prior improper removals demonstrates abuse and delay	Diaz relied on his statutory removal right and did not present new, viable grounds	Court: Found clear abuse of process; barred further removals without leave
Scope of recoverable fees — may Plaintiff recover fees from state-court foreclosure-sale litigation	Sought fees for costs caused by canceled foreclosure sale	Diaz did not substantively oppose in the record	Court: Denied fees for general state-court foreclosure litigation here; Plaintiff may pursue interest from sale postponement separately
Procedure to fix the amount of fees	Requested fees and costs generally in remand motion	No timely opposition filed	Court: Plaintiff must file a detailed fee motion with time records and rates; Magistrate will determine amount after briefing

Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) (fees under § 1447(c) are recoverable only when removal lacked an objectively reasonable basis)
Bentley v. Miami Air Int'l, Inc., 377 F. Supp. 3d 1337 (S.D. Fla. 2019) (granting fees under § 1447(c) where removal lacked arguable grounds for federal jurisdiction)
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (standards and consequences for filing objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation)
Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790 (11th Cir. 1989) (procedural rules regarding objections to reports and recommendations)