BANK AS TRUSTEE FOR MORGAN MORTGAGE ACQUISITION TRUST 2006 WMC2 ASSET BACKED PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006 WMC2 v. AMINA (2020)
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
U.S. BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR J.P. MORGAN MORTGAGE ACQUISITION TRUST 2006-WMC2, ASSET BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-WMC2, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donna Mae AMINA; Melvin Keakaku Amina, Defendants-Appellants.
Decided: December 10, 2020
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Adrian Lyle Lavarias, Esquire, Attorney, Sharon Paris, Bays Lung Rose & Holma, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee Donna Mae Amina, Pro Se Melvin Keakaku Amina, Pro Se
Donna Mae Amina and Melvin Keakaku Amina appeal pro se from the district court's orders concerning the imposition of attorney's fees and costs following the remand of their action to state court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court's award of fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Lussier v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 518 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding plaintiff fees and costs because appellants lacked an objectively reasonably basis to remove the action, as their argument that Hawaii is not a state is frivolous. See Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141, 126 S.Ct. 704, 163 L.Ed.2d 547 (2005) (“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.”); see also 28 U.S.C. 1441(b) (“A civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of [diversity jurisdiction] may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.”).
We reject as meritless appellants’ contention that the district court lacked jurisdiction to impose fees and costs, and their various contentions concerning the propriety of the award.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Appellants’ motions to file a supplemental brief (Docket Entry Nos. 23, 24) are granted. The Clerk is directed to file appellants’ Supplement to Opening Brief (Docket Entry No. 20).
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.