govinfo:USCOURTS-cand-3_26-cv-03268-0

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
MICHAEL PIERCE, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
 
AIR SYSTEMS, INC., 
Defendant. 
 

 
 
ORDER RE MOTION TO REMAND 
AND ATTORNEY'S FEES 
 
 
Neither party in the above captioned matter disputes that the case should be remanded to 
state court. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to remand is granted. 
Plaintiff also requests the Court “award Plaintiff’s reasonable fees and costs and consider 
sanctions,” arguing Defendant acted improperly in removing the case in reliance on so-called 
“snap removal” authority and its inaccurate view that service had not yet occurred. Dkt. 11, Opp., 
at 4. In brief, the case was removed on diversity grounds on April 17, 2026, but on April 20, 2026, 
proof of service was filed in state court, and Defendant learned that the Complaint had been served 
prior to removal. Accordingly, on April 21, 2026, Defendant filed a notice of withdrawal of the 
removal with this Court. Plaintiff only opposes with regard to its request for fees. 
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), when remanding a case to state court, a court “may require 
payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the 
removal.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “Absent unusual circumstances, courts may award attorney’s 
fees under § 1447(c) only where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for 
seeking removal.” Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005). Defendant here 

 
 

2 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
was not objectively unreasonable. As the email exchange submitted shows, Plaintiff also was 
seemingly unaware that service had occurred. The request for fees is denied. The Clerk shall 
remand this action to the Superior Court of California, Alameda County. 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
Dated: June 10, 2026 
______________________________________ 
RICHARD SEEBORG 
Chief United States District Judge 
 
 

Passage view · GavelSight