Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  



Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp.

28 U.S.C. � 1447(c) is a good example of a one-sided "loser pays" rule; a plaintiff can ask for attorneys' fees to compensate for an improper removal to federal court by a defendant, but a defendant has no such opportunity for fees for an improper remand motion. The Seventh Circuit makes such fee-shifting the default rule; other circuits award fees only if the removal was entirely meritless. Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard argument in Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp.; alas, mainstream press accounts are entirely lacking, apparently because I'm one of the few people who find the intricacies of federal jurisdiction questions worth reading about, but the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin reports (Nov. 9 subscription only) that the justices were skeptical of the plaintiffs' argument that they should be awarded fees as a matter of course for a remanded class action. Intermittent blogger Sam Heldman (who has jousted with Overlawyered) argued the case for petitioner plaintiffs. SCOTUSblog's James Darrow summarizes the briefs, though makes a mistake in discussing the Allapattah case.



Rafael Mangual
Project Manager,
Legal Policy

Manhattan Institute


Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.