Report and Recommendation

ERIC I. LONG, Magistrate Judge.

This case is before the Court on Defendants', James Cox and the Village of Bourbonnais, Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs (#7). Defendants seek reimbursement of fees and expenses pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Plaintiff's deadline to respond to the motion was September 25, 2015, but no response was filed. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(B)(2), the Court presumes there is no opposition to the motion. For the reasons explained below, the Court recommends Defendants' Motion be granted in part and denied in part.

Plaintiff filed his Complaint, alleging violations under the Illinois Constitution, on November 7, 2014, in the Circuit Court of the Twenty First Judicial Circuit, Kankakee County, Illinois. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted and Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint included a claim arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and a claim under Illinois common law. On July 9, 2015, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal to this Court. The Court set the case for an initial status hearing on September 1, 2015. The attorneys were informed that if they submitted a proposed discovery plan to the Court, that the in person status hearing would be converted to a telephone hearing.

According to Defendants' Motion, defense counsel attempted to confer with Plaintiff's counsel to form a proposed scheduling plan, but Plaintiff's counsel was unresponsive. Therefore, Defendants independently filed a proposed scheduling plan. The Court then permitted Defendants to participate in the hearing by phone, but required Plaintiff's counsel to appear in person. Due to the lack of communication with Plaintiff's counsel, defense counsel chose to attend the hearing in person.

During the hearing on September 1, 2015, Plaintiff's counsel made an oral motion to voluntarily dismiss the Section 1983 claim and to remand the case back to State court. Defendants' motion indicates that they were unaware of Plaintiff's intention to remand the case until the motion was made at the hearing. The Court granted the motion and remanded the case due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Section 1447(c) provides that "An order remanding the case may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Although the Court did not include an award for fees in its order remanding the case, the Court retains jurisdiction to consider collateral matters, and an award of attorney's fees under § 1447(c) may be granted under a separate order. Wisconsin v. Hotline Indust., Inc., 236 F.3d 363, 365 (7th Cir. 2010).

Section 1447(c) provides that an award of fees is in the Court's discretion ("may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses"). An award of fees is warranted in this case where Plaintiff failed to alert Defendants as to his intention to request the case be remanded back to State court, causing Defendants to incur costs in preparing a proposed scheduling plan and attending the September 1, 2015 status conference. Therefore, the Court recommends an award of fees.

Defendants ask the Court to award the fees and costs related to the removal, the filing of the report of discovery plan, and attendance at the initial status conference. Defendants cite Hotline Industries, where the Seventh Circuit concluded that § 1447(c) provides for the award of "actual" costs incurred, rather than merely "reasonable" fees. Hotline Industries, 236 F. 3d at 366-67. Defendants provided billing statements representing their costs from July and August 2015. For July and August, the Court finds that the amounts requested by Defendants were incurred as a result of the removal, except costs incurred from time spent working on Defendants' "litigation strategy." Therefore, the Court recommends an award in the amount of $1,066.53 to compensate for Defendants' costs in July and August 2015.

Defendants also request fees from September 2015 relating to the initial status conference and preparation for this motion for fees. Defendants did not provide a breakdown of fees associated with the initial status conference and the Court recommends a denial of this request. Additionally, the Court recommends Defendants request for costs in preparing the motion for fees also be denied.

For these reasons, the Court recommends Defendants motion be granted in part and denied in part and Plaintiff be ordered to pay Defendants $1,066.53 in fees and costs.

The parties are advised that any objection to this recommendation must be filed in writing with the clerk within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure to object will constitute a waiver of objections on appeal. Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538, 539 (7th Cir. 1986).