Yee v. Passline Services, LP
3:17-cv-00317
| W.D. Tex. | Apr 30, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Dolores Yee removed an underlying state eviction proceeding to federal court, relying on 28 U.S.C. § 1443; the Court remanded and dismissed two defendants not named in the state action.
- The Court entered an Order on January 22, 2018 granting remand and dismissals.
- Defendant Passline moved for attorney’s fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), arguing Yee’s removal was objectively unreasonable and a stalling tactic.
- Yee (pro se) filed a motion construed as a Rule 60(b) motion to reconsider, alleging she did not receive notice of defendants’ motions, asserting attorney misconduct, and requesting various relief including a stay.
- Yee did not meaningfully challenge the Court’s legal reasoning for remand or dismissal in her filings; she focused on alleged state-court injustices and counsel misconduct.
- The Court denied both Yee’s Rule 60(b) motion and Passline’s request for attorney’s fees, finding reconsideration unjustified and fees unwarranted under the circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 60(b) relief is warranted to set aside the remand/dismissal | Yee: lacked notice of motions and counsel misconduct justify relief | Passline: remand was proper; no basis for reconsideration | Denied — Yee failed to challenge the Court’s legal reasoning; allegations insufficient to warrant relief |
| Whether attorney’s fees should be awarded under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) after remand | Yee: (vaguely) sought to avoid fees / argued procedural irregularities | Passline: removal was objectively unreasonable and fees are appropriate | Denied — although removal was legally improper, a pro se litigant could reasonably rely on § 1443; fees not justified here |
Key Cases Cited
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se filings must be liberally construed)
- Valdes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 199 F.3d 290 (5th Cir. 2000) (award of fees after remand is discretionary)
- Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) (fees under § 1447(c) may be awarded only when removal lacked an objectively reasonable basis)
- Warthman v. Genoa Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 549 F.3d 1055 (6th Cir. 2008) (district court discretion in awarding or denying fees involves more than objective-reasonableness threshold)