Wasatch Pool Holdings, Inc. v. Bailey, No. 1:2015cv00776 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 7/14/15 ORDERING the May 27, 2015 Findings and Recommendations are ADOPTED IN FULL; this action is REMANDED to state court; Plaintiff is awarded $1,350.00 in attorney's fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); the Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this action; and All other pending dates and matters are vacated as moot. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED. (Becknal, R)

Download PDF
Wasatch Pool Holdings, Inc. v. Bailey Doc. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WASATCH POOL HOLDINGS, INC., 12 Plaintiff, 13 Case No. 1:15-cv-00776-TLN-SAB ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. ECF NO. 5, 7 14 15 MARIO BAILEY, Defendant. 16 17 On May 27, 2015, the magistrate judge assigned to this action issued a Findings and 18 Recommendations recommending that this action be remanded to state court. (ECF No. 7.) The 19 Findings and Recommendations contained notice that any objections were to be filed within 20 twenty-one (21) days. To date, no party has filed objections to the Findings and 21 Recommendations. 22 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted 23 a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the 24 Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 25 Furthermore, on May 26, 2015, Plaintiff Wasatch Pool Holdings, Inc. filed a Motion for 26 Remand requesting $1,350.00 in attorney’s fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), which grants 27 the Court discretion to award costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred as a result 28 of improvident removal. Defendant Mario Bailey (“Defendant”) has not filed an opposition to 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 the request and any opposition was due on June 17, 2015 pursuant to Local Rule 230(c). The 2 Court finds that an award of attorney’s fees is appropriate in this case and the requested fee is 3 reasonable. See Balcorta v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 208 F.3d 1102, 1106 n.6 (9th 4 Cir. 2000) (attorney’s fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) appropriate where removal was wrong as a 5 matter of law). In this action, Defendant’s basis for removal was frivolous. 6 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The May 27, 2015 Findings and Recommendations are ADOPTED IN FULL; 8 2. This action is REMANDED to state court; 9 3. Plaintiff is awarded $1,350.00 in attorney’s fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); 10 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this action; and 11 5. All other pending dates and matters are vacated as moot. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: July 14, 2015 15 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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.