Uy v. Van

Opinion

3 JOCELYNE R. UY, WESTLEY U. Case No.: 2:24-cv-00599-GMN-DJA 5 Plaintiffs, vs. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 6 REMAND 7 SANDY VAN, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Pending before the Court is the Motion to Remand, (ECF No. 33), filed by Plaintiffs 11 Jocelyn R. Uy and Westley U. Villanueva. Defendants Sandy Van, Sandy Van, LLC, and Van 12 and Associates Law First PPLC (“Van Defendants”) filed a Response, (ECF No. 36). 13 Defendants Van Le Ngan, JML Holdings, LLC, Ngan Van Le, and JML Surgical Center, LLC 14 (“Le Defendants”) also filed a Response, (ECF No. 37). Plaintiff filed a Reply, (ECF No. 40). 15 For the reasons described below, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Remand but DENIES 16 Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees. 18 This case arises out of the alleged wrongful termination of two employees of a law firm 19 after the employees raised concerns about unethical practices within the firm. (See generally 20 First Am. Compl. (“FAC”), ECF No. 1-2). Plaintiffs initially filed their Complaint in the 21 Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada. (Pet. Removal ¶ 1, ECF No. 1). 22 Defendants subsequently removed Plaintiffs’ FAC which included a federal claim. (Id. ¶¶ 2, 5). 23 This Court granted the Le Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ FAC, and granted, in part, 24 the Van Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ FAC. (See generally Order, ECF No. 30). 25 Plaintiffs then filed their Second Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 31), which no longer contains 1 any federal claims. Plaintiffs now move to remand this action back to state court and seek 2 attorneys’ fees for improper removal. (See generally Mot. Remand, ECF No. 33). 4 This Court had subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ FAC because it had 5 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over the federal claim and supplemental jurisdiction over 6 Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The parties unanimously 7 agree that the Court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction over this action because Plaintiffs’ 8 Second Amended Complaint no longer contains any federal claims, which was the sole basis 9 for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over this case. (Mot. Remand 4:26–5:22); (Van 10 Defs.’ Resp. 3:6–15, ECF No. 36); (Le Defs.’ Resp. 1:5–14, ECF No. 37). The Court agrees 11 that it no longer has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion 12 to Remand is GRANTED to the extent it seeks remand of this case. 13 The parties do, however, disagree on the issue of attorneys’ fees. Plaintiffs ask the 14 Court to order that they be awarded just costs and any actual expenses, including attorneys’ 15 fees, incurred as a result of removal. (Mot. Remand 5:23–26) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)). 16 They argue that fees may be awarded even where the removal was “fairly supportable.” (Id. 17 6:2–6) (citing Balcorta v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 208 F.3d 1102, 1106 n.6 (9th Cir.

18 2000)). But “[a]bsent unusual circumstances, a court may award costs and attorney’s fees 19 under § 1447(c) only where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for 20 seeking removal.” Grancare, LLC v. Thrower by & through Mills, 889 F.3d 543, 552 (9th Cir. 21 2018) (citing Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005)); see 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1447(c). Here, there was an objectively reasonable basis for removal at the time Defendants 23 removed this case: Plaintiffs’ FAC contained a federal claim. Because Defendants had an 24 objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal, the Court may not award costs and attorneys’ 25 1 || fees. See Grancare, 889 F.3d at 552. Thus, the portion of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand that 2 ||seeks attorneys’ fees and costs is DENIED. 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand, (ECF No. 33), is 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Eight Judicial 7 || District Court for Clark County. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees is DENIED. 9 10 DATED this _39 _ day of April, 2025. 11 Vf, 12 Mi __ 3 Gloria M. N yl ro, District Judge UNITED STAYES DISTRICT COURT 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 3 of 3