JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.
Plaintiff Silvia Diego ("Plaintiff") sued her former employer Golden Valley Health Centers ("Defendant") for breach of contract and violation of public policy under state law in state court. Defendant's unwarranted removal of the case on the basis of federal question jurisdiction caused Plaintiff to incur unnecessary costs and fees in moving to remand. The Court now awards Plaintiff a portion of her requested attorneys' fees at Defendant's expense.
Plaintiff worked as Chief Medical Officer at Defendant's clinic. Compl. ¶ 3. Plaintiff alleges that in her ninth year in her position, Defendant's CEO initiated "a series of policy directives and procedural changes aimed at increasing the number of patients seen in the [] facilities without a corresponding increase in the number of medical providers." Compl. ¶ 6. Plaintiff objected to these changes, because she felt that they would "reduce the quality of patient care that could be rendered for low income and indigent clients[.]" Compl. ¶ 7. Defendant then terminated Plaintiff's employment due to of her "fail[ure] to support the CEO's policies and his leadership team." Compl. ¶ 9.
Plaintiff sued Defendant in Stanislaus County Superior Court, asserting three causes of action: (1) "Discharge in Violation of Public Policy" under California Business and Professions Code sections 2056(b) and (c); (2) "Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing"; and (3) "Breach of Written Contract."
Both Plaintiff and Defendant are citizens of California. See Compl. ¶¶ 2-3. Defendant removed the action to federal court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, asserting that Plaintiff's allegations could form claims under the Federal Constitution (Doc. #1).
One week after removal, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Doc. #4) and a motion to compel arbitration (Doc. #8). Four days later, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand (Doc. #14). Plaintiff sought a stipulation to delay briefing on Defendant's two motions until after a ruling on her remand request, which would render both of Defendant's motions moot.
The Court granted Plaintiff's motion for remand following a hearing (Doc. #48). Plaintiff now moves for attorney's fees and costs incurred by her as a result of Defendant's wrongful removal in the amount of $8,510 (Doc. #49). Defendant opposes the motion (Doc. #50).
A court granting remand may award attorney's fees incurred "as a result of" an improper removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). To award fees, the removing party must have lacked "an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal."
Plaintiff moves for attorney's fees expended on preparing and arguing the motion to remand. Plaintiff also moves for fees related to two other motions filed in federal court: Defendant's motion to dismiss and motion to compel arbitration. Defendant argues that an award of fees is not warranted because removal was reasonable. In the alternative, Defendant contends that any award should be limited strictly to those fees and costs accrued by Plaintiff in opposing Defendant's removal and preparing Plaintiff's motion to remand.
The Court finds that Defendant did not have an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal. Defendant's theory of removal was that Plaintiff should have brought her claims under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution, rather than under the California state laws that form the basis of her complaint.
This remand issue was not a close one. Defendant's argument was squarely foreclosed by longstanding and controlling authority.
Based on Defendant's unreasonable conduct in this case, the Court exercises its discretion to award fees to Plaintiff. But as to the scope of the award, the Court agrees with Defendant that the motions to dismiss and compel arbitration were not "a result of" the removal, because Defendant could have brought them in state court. Defendant cites
Here, the motions to dismiss and compel arbitration both argued that the Court should dismiss the case and "order the parties to arbitration."
The Court may, therefore, only consider the number of billable hours Plaintiff's counsel and paralegal reasonably spent on securing remand. The Court awards fees for the tasks listed below. The Court finds reasonable the number of hours spent on each task (but one) as set forth in Plaintiff's counsel's declaration.
For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's motion and awards attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $3,355.00. Defendant shall pay this amount to Plaintiff, by and through her attorney, within twenty days of the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.