Thermtron Prod., Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 346 (1976) ("(Only remand orders issued under § 1447(c) . . . are immune from review under § 1447(d)"); Ariel Land Owners, Inc. v. Dring, 351 F.3d 611,613 (3d Cir. 2003); In re FMC Corp. Packaging Sys. Div., 208 F.3d 445, 448-49 (3d Cir. 2000); Korea Exch. Bank, 66 F.3d at 48, 51; see also Shapiro v. Logistec USA, Inc., 412 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that district court may reconsider motion to remand where motion was not timely fied and asserted improper removal by a resident defendant). Because remand was improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), this Cour has the authority to reconsider its Order and deny Plaintiffs' untimely-fied Motion to Remand. Respectfully submitted, lsI Ellen Rosen Rogoff Ellen Rosen Rogoff Danel T. Fitch Leslie M. Greenspan Pa. Attorney Nos. 43468,53717,91639 STRALEY, RONON, STEVENS & YOUNG, LLP 2600 One Commerce Square Philadelphia, PA 19103-7098 (215) 564-8000

Stuart Clark appeared for Pierce, and -------------------------------- appeared for defendant Wells Fargo Bank. After consideration of the papers filed, and the arguments of counsel, and for good cause shown, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over the state law causes of action asserted in the complaint, and also that those claims are not preempted by ERISA. Accordingly: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The case is remanded to the Santa Clara County Superior Court; and, 2. Wells Fargo Bank is ordered to pay expenses in the sum of $13,200 to Pierce, within ten (10) days of this order, under 28 USC § 1447(c). Case 5:08-cv-01554-JF Document 11-2 Filed 04/08/2008 Page 1 of 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 {00302342v1} -2- Order Remanding Case to the Santa Clara County Superior Court (Case No.

[In re Shell Oil Co. (5th Cir. 1991) 932 F2d 1518, 1522; Shapiro v. Logistec USA, Inc. (2nd Cir. 2005) 412 F3d 307, 313 & fn. 2] Failure of all served defendants to join in notice of removal. [Roe v. O’Donohue (7th Cir. 1994) 38 F3d 298, 301-302] Other cases construe “defect in removal procedure” ((§1447(c)) more literally and apply the 30-day limit only to remand motions challenging the procedure by which the case was removed from state court; e.g., failure to join all defendants, defects in removal notice, etc.. Under this view, remand motions on grounds unrelated to the procedure for removing the case from state court are not subject to the 30-day limit (e.g. removals made in violation of forum- Case 3:08-cv-01558-BEN-BLM Document 6 Filed 09/01/2008 Page 5 of 10 6 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 selection clause, abstention, etc.). [Foster v. Chesapeake Ins. Co., Ltd. (3rd Cir. 1991) 933 F2d 1207, 1212; see Armistead v. C & M Transport, Inc. (1st Cir. 1995) 49 F3d 43, 47; Snapper, Inc. v. Redan (11th Cir. 1999) 171 F3d 1249, 1256-1259] Because remand is favored, if defendant fails to raise the untimeliness of the remand mot

This is so because an order granting a motion for remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) is not reviewable on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 343 (1976) abrogated in part by Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, (1996); Feidt v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp., 153 F.3d 124, 130 (3d Cir. 1998). In contrast, an order denying a motion for remand is not subject to such restrictions.

Section 1447(c) authorizes a court to require payment of just costs, including attorney' fees, as part of its remand order. See Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 138, 126 S.Ct. 704, 163 L.Ed.2d 547 (2005); 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“An order remanding the case may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.”).

e 4:08-cv-00569 Document 6 Filed in TXSD on 03/13/08 Page 9 of 10 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 13, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court for the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, using the electronic case filing system of the Court. The electronic case filing system sent a "Notice of Electronic Filing" to the following attorneys of record who have consented in writing to accept this Notice as service of this document by electronic means. All others were served a copy via U.S. mail postage prepaid: George R. Neely by facsimile 540 Heights Boulevard Houston, TX 77007 -- and -- 1925 FM 723 Rosenberg, TX 77471 /s/ Charles W. Schwartz Charles W. Schwartz CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE On March 13, 2008, the undersigned left a message for George R. Neely to obtain his consent or opposition to Motion to Remand and Brief in Support and Motion for Costs and Attorneys' Fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(C). As of the filing of this Motion, Neely has not responded.

In the First Order, the Court directed Mr. Jackson that he had until June 29, 2015, to respond to Ms. Leviston’s application for fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. §1447(c).14 10. On June 29, 2015, Mr. Jackson filed his Response In Opposition to Plaintiff’s Application for Fees and Costs Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 15 11. At the Hearing in connection with the First Removal, the Court asked counsel for Mr. Jackson, Stephanie L. Gase whether she believed that diversity jurisdiction existed at that time.

“[I]t is more than enough to recognize that the parties opposing removal were put to needless expense on the thinnest of bases.” Little Rest Twelve, 2011 WL 3055375, at *14; see also Shamoun v. Peerless Imps., Inc., No. 03 CV 1227(NG), 2003 WL 21781954, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2003) (awarding costs and attorneys’ fees where plaintiff’s complaint presented a straightforward state law claim); Greenidge v. Mundo Shipping Corp., 60 F. Supp. 2d 10, 12 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) (awarding costs and attorneys’ fees where the removal greatly complicated the case and the impropriety of the removal should have been clear). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Marriott respectfully requests that the Court abstain and remand this case to the New York State Supreme Court, deny Owner’s motion for transfer of venue, and award costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Dated: October 14, 2011 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, New York, New York /s/ JENNER & BLOCK LLP Richard F. Ziegler Brian J. Fischer Colleen A. Harrison 919 Third Avenue, 37th Floor New York, New York 10022 Telephone: (212) 891-1600 Fax: (212) 909-0815 Case 1:11-cv-06488-BSJ Document 17 Filed 10/14/11 Page 29 of 30 24 David A. Handzo (pro hac vice motion forthcoming) Michael B. DeSanctis Lindsay C. Harrison (pro hac vice motion forthcoming) Kelly D. Gardner 1099 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 639-6000 Fax: (202) 661-4956 Case 1:11-cv-06488-BSJ Document 17 Filed 10/14/11 Page 30 of 30

Although it was not ultimately persuaded by Defendants’ arguments, the Court does not find that removal was frivolous or motivated by bad faith. The Court therefore declines to exercise its discretion to award Plaintiffs’ fees and costs under section 1447(c). Case3:12-cv-06579-JSW Document48 Filed04/10/13 Page6 of 8 EXHIBIT 1: ORDER REMANDING CASE Case3:13-cv-04209-JSW Document1 Filed1 /03/13 Page22 35 U ni te d St at es D is tr ic t C ou rt Fo r t he N or th er n D is tri ct o f C al ifo rn ia 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 7 CONCLUSION For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to remand this action to the Superior Court for the County of Alameda and DENIES the request for attorneys’ fees.

Removal jurisdiction is therefore lacking. Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court to remand this case to the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Respectfully submitted, THE WOLK LAW FIRM /s/ Michael S. Miska MICHAEL S. MISKA Case 2:11-cv-07172-MAM Document 31 Filed 12/16/11 Page 30 of 32 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Michael S. Miska, hereby certify that on December 16, 2011, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs’ Motion for Remand, was electronically filed and served upon the following in the manner indicated below: VIA ECF James C. Stroud, Esquire Rawle & Henderson, Esquire 1339 Chestnut Street The Widener Building, 16th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19107 Attorney for Defendant, Dukes Aerospace, Inc.