My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad



« Seeking a New Judge as Matter of Right in Illinois | Main | Should Jurors with Relevant Professional Experience Be Instructed Not to Use It? »


Robert Williamson (Construction Owners and Builders Law blog)

As a practical matter, didn't Robert's and the Court establish a presumption against an award of fees? Presumably the injured party will have to demonstrate the absence of an objectively reasonable basis for the removal. Robert's is bound to know that the value of the time required to carry that burden may equal or exceed the value of the time expended securing remand. That's especially true when the time required for an appeal is factored in. The existence or non-existence of an objectively reasonable grounds for removal presumably is a question of law subject to de novo review. The decision is likely to make what many perceived to be a serious problem--defendants removing cases on flimsy grounds worse.


Agreed, except that I'm not sure the threat of fee award was ever much of a deterrent to defendants wishing to remove.

John Robert Stratton


You may want to check the working of the second paragraph of your post, unless the current wording in the post is an accurate reflection of your interpretation of 1447(c).


If you're referring to my use of the term "fee-shiting," I fixed it.

The comments to this entry are closed.



    How to Feed a Lawyer (and Other Irreverent Observations from the Legal Underground)

    Click on the book cover for details!

Search Trial Practice Tips