Filed: Aug. 27, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 27, 2019
Summary: ORDER ROY B. DALTON, JR. , District Judge . In the instant action, pro se Third Party Defendant Jonathan Michael (" Michael ") removed the case here, invoking federal question jurisdiction. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff PNC Bank, National Association (" PNC ") moved to remand on the basis that a third party defendant may not remove actions under 28 U.S.C. 1441(a). (Doc. 5.) Finding remand appropriate, the Court granted in part PNC's motion to remand and gave PNC leave to file documents in suppor
Summary: ORDER ROY B. DALTON, JR. , District Judge . In the instant action, pro se Third Party Defendant Jonathan Michael (" Michael ") removed the case here, invoking federal question jurisdiction. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff PNC Bank, National Association (" PNC ") moved to remand on the basis that a third party defendant may not remove actions under 28 U.S.C. 1441(a). (Doc. 5.) Finding remand appropriate, the Court granted in part PNC's motion to remand and gave PNC leave to file documents in support..
More
ORDER
ROY B. DALTON, JR., District Judge.
In the instant action, pro se Third Party Defendant Jonathan Michael ("Michael") removed the case here, invoking federal question jurisdiction. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff PNC Bank, National Association ("PNC") moved to remand on the basis that a third party defendant may not remove actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). (Doc. 5.) Finding remand appropriate, the Court granted in part PNC's motion to remand and gave PNC leave to file documents in support of its request for attorney fees. (Doc. 6.) PNC then moved for attorney fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), arguing Michael lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal. (Doc. 17 ("Motion").) Michael didn't respond.
On referral, U.S. Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick recommends granting the Motion—not just because it's unopposed but because Michael's removal was "wholly improper." (Doc. 18 ("R&R").) Michael then objected to the R&R on two grounds: (1) his Objection is timely, so he has responded; and (2) his third-party removal was proper, and he mistakenly referenced the wrong subsection. (Doc. 19 ("Objection").) PNC countered that: (1) Michael failed to respond to the Motion at issue; rather, he objected to an earlier motion for attorneys' fees and costs; and (2) the Court has already determined that removal was "wholly improper." (Doc. 20.)
On de novo review, the Court overrules Michael's Objection.1 The Court will not re-litigate the issue of remand, and the record establishes that Michael's removal was "wholly improper." (Doc. 6, p. 1.) This means Michael "lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal," and PNC's request for attorney's fees may be granted. See Martin v. Franklin Cap. Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005). The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Irick that PNC's award request is reasonable and appropriate in this case. (Doc. 18, p. 2.) Thus, the Court will adopt the R&R and overrule the Objection.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Third Party Defendant Jonathan Michael's Objection to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) is OVERRULED.
2. U.S. Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18) is ADOPTED, CONFIRMED, and made a part of this Order.
3. Plaintiff PNC Bank, National Association's Motion for Entry of Final Judgment of Attorneys' Fees (Doc. 17) is GRANTED:
a. Plaintiff is AWARDED $5,927.50 in attorney fees against Third Party Defendant Jonathan Michael.
DONE AND ORDERED.
