Jeffrey A. Mints v. Educational Testing Service

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that, while district courts may remand a case without notice, they generally should provide an opportunity for parties to be heard on the issue
• recognizing that a district court has “broad discretion and may be flexible in determining whether to require the payment of fees under [28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) ].”
• holding that court of appeals reviews counsel fees following remand for abuse of discretion
• stating that “[u]nder Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2), if [removing defendant] had raised the Rule 54(d)(2)(B) contention in the district court, [plaintiff] could have asked the district court to extend the time for him to file and serve his motion[]” for attorney’s fees
• where basis for removal “was, if not frivolous, at best insubstantial,” district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding fees
• “[D]istrict court may require the payment of fees and costs... even though the party removing the case did not act in bad faith.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).