U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION V. DONNA AMINA, No. 18-16786 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 10 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. BANK, N.A., as Trustee for J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2006WMC2, Asset Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-WMC2, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-16786 D.C. No. 1:18-cv-00225-DKWKSC MEMORANDUM* v. DONNA MAE AMINA; MELVIN KEAKAKU AMINA, Defendants-Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 2, 2020** Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Donna Mae Amina and Melvin Keakaku Amina appeal pro se from the district court’s orders concerning the imposition of attorney’s fees and costs * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). following the remand of their action to state court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s award of fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Lussier v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 518 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding plaintiff fees and costs because appellants lacked an objectively reasonably basis to remove the action, as their argument that Hawaii is not a state is frivolous. See Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005) (“Absent unusual circumstances, courts may award attorney’s fees under § 1447(c) only where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.”); see also 28 U.S.C. 1441(b) (“A civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of [diversity jurisdiction] may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.”). We reject as meritless appellants’ contention that the district court lacked jurisdiction to impose fees and costs, and their various contentions concerning the propriety of the award. We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). 2 18-16786 Appellants’ motions to file a supplemental brief (Docket Entry Nos. 23, 24) are granted. The Clerk is directed to file appellants’ Supplement to Opening Brief (Docket Entry No. 20). AFFIRMED. 3 18-16786

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.