Exclusive Group Holdings, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

It is no accident that there can be monetary consequences pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) for unsuccessfully removing a case filed in state court to federal court. The “large objective” of deterring unnecessary federal court removal petitions is at play: “Assessing costs and fees on remand reduces the attractiveness of removal as a method for delaying litigation and imposing costs on the plaintiff.” Martin v. Franklin Cap. Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 140 (2005). In Martin, this Court balanced that “large objective” of deterring unnecessary removal petitions with other competing public policy rationale by eliminating an “automatic” operation of an award of attorneys’ fees and costs upon remand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Martin, 546 U.S. at 139. Nevertheless, the Martin court went on to hold that “[a]bsent unusual circumstances,” a district court “may award attorney’s fees under § 1447(c) only where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.” Martin, 546 U.S. at 141 (emphasis added). The question presented to this Court is: Whether, in order to fulfill the “large objective” of deterring unnecessary federal court removal petitions, district courts are required to expressly determine whether or not “unusual circumstances” exist in adjudicating motions for awards of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).