Derbes v. State of Louisiana ( 2023 )

Case: 22-30696 Document: 00516805111 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/29/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
June 29, 2023
No. 22-30696 Lyle W. Cayce
____________ Clerk
Matthew Derbes,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
State of Louisiana, through Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry,
Department of Justice,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:21-CV-710
______________________________
Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
The State of Louisiana appeals the district court’s order remanding
the underlying action to state court and awarding $2,312.50 in attorneys’ fees
and costs to the plaintiff on the basis that Louisiana lacked an objectively
reasonable basis for removal. Because the district court did not abuse its
discretion, we AFFIRM.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30696 Document: 00516805111 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/29/2023
No. 22-30696
I.
Matthew Derbes filed charges of discrimination with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission and Louisiana Commission on
Human Rights alleging retaliation by his employer, the Louisiana Attorney
General, after he reported several instances of sexual harassment of other
employees who had reported it to him. Several months later, Derbes filed a
petition in state court alleging defamation and retaliation/reprisal in violation
of Louisiana law after he reported various acts of misconduct. Louisiana filed
a notice of removal to federal court on December 15, 2021, alleging federal
question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343. On December 21, 2021,
Derbes filed a motion to remand, which Louisiana opposed.
The district court found that Louisiana did not have an objectively
reasonable basis for removal. The district court also found that Derbes’
petition clearly indicated it did not assert a Title VII claim by explicitly
reserving the right to later assert one. Further, the district court said, “[t]he
Plaintiff’s allegations make clear that plaintiff was only asserting state law
claims. Moreover, the very cases upon which Defendant relies in its
opposition to the motion to remand should have informed the Defendant that
there was no federal jurisdiction.” Because it determined there was no
objectively reasonable basis for removal, the district asserted its discretion to
award attorney’s fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). As a result, the district
court adopted the detailed Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation,
granted the motion to remand, and granted Derbes’ request for attorneys’
fees and costs of $2,312.50.
II.
On appeal, Louisiana argues that it was objectively reasonable in its
removal of this matter to federal court and should not have to pay attorneys’
fees and costs. We disagree. After a thorough review of the briefs, the
2
Case: 22-30696 Document: 00516805111 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/29/2023
No. 22-30696
pleadings and the applicable law, we conclude that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees and costs of $2,312.50 based
on its assessment that Louisiana’s removal was objectively unreasonable. See
Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005); see also American
Airlines, Inc. v. Sabre, Inc., 694 F.3d 539, 544 (5th Cir. 2012). AFFIRMED.
3