Home Properties 1200 East West, LLC. v. Omomowo et al, No. 8:2013cv03689 - Document 18 (D. Md. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 1/14/14. (sat, Chambers)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND : HOME PROPERTIES 1200 EAST WEST, LLC : v. : Civil Action No. DKC 13-3689 : OMOLERE J. OMOMOWO, et al. : MEMORANDUM OPINION On December 6, 2013, Plaintiff and Counter Defendant Home Properties 1200 East West, LLC removed this action from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County on the basis of federal question jurisdiction Plaintiffs presented counterclaims. in On Defendant December and 10, Counter 2013, Home Properties filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaims. On December 12, 2013, the court issued an Order to Show Cause why the case should not be remanded as there was no federal question presented in the state court matter at the time the complaint was filed by Plaintiff in state court. In December its response 20, 2013, to the court s Plaintiff and Order to Counter Show Cause Defendant Properties 1200 East West, LLC consented to the remand. on Home On the same day, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs filed a motion to stay briefing on the motion to dismiss given the inevitable remand, and moved for an award of fees and costs from the improper removal. (ECF No. 15). Home Properties disputes the appropriateness of fees, and a reply has been filed. This case will be remanded, the issue of scheduling the briefing on the motion to dismiss will be left to the state court, and the request for fees will be denied. Attorney s fees, costs, and expenses may be awarded when a case is remanded 1447(c). The to state decision to court, award pursuant to attorney s 28 fees U.S.C. under § this section is left to the sound discretion of the court, but is appropriate only where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal. Martin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 136, 140-41 (2005). v. Franklin Congress, in enacting § 1447(c), desired to deter removals sought for the purpose of prolonging opposing party. litigation and imposing costs on the Id. at 140. None of the objectives behind § 1447(c) are present here. Other than a disclosure statement, the motion for relief concerning briefing, and the request for fees, Plaintiffs filed nothing in this court. While there might have been some research necessitated by the removal, the court s show cause order was issued promptly after the case was instituted, thus minimizing the necessary legal work. 2 Counsel seek fees for preparing a response to the motion to dismiss, but that effort will be useful after remand. Both the disclosure statement and the response to the standing order should have required minimal time. The petition for fees is woefully deficient, in any event, and the court declines to engage in side litigation over the requested fees. A separate order will be entered. _________/s/________________ DEBORAH K. CHASANOW United States District Judge 3
]]>
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.
