Houden

Houden v. Todd

Good Law
348 F. App'x 221
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 14, 2009No. 08-35518California547 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Following their successful motion to remand this Montana property rights dispute to state court, Christopher A. Houden and Jeffrey Houden (“the Houdens”) appeal the denial of costs and fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c). Fees and costs may be awarded under § 1447(c) if the attempted removal was objectively unreasonable. See Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 , 126 S.Ct. 704 , 163 L.Ed.2d 547 (2005); Lussier v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 518 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir.2008).

We agree with the Houdens that the removal by defendant Wayne S. Todd (“Todd”) was objectively unreasonable. Todd failed to satisfy his burden to plead complete diversity of the parties, making only a cursory allegation that the case was “a civil action between citizens of different states.” See Ranter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir.2001) (“Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant parties.”); see also Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.1992) (defendant has burden of establishing removal is proper). 1 Todd’s attempted removal was also…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.