Lussier v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that 14 while “[t]here is no question that [defendant’s] arguments were losers[,] ... removal is not 15 objectively unreasonable solely because the removing party’s arguments lack merit, or else 16 attorney’s fees would always be awarded whenever remand is granted”
• denying fees and costs despite noting there was “no question” that the defendant’s “arguments were losers”
• noting removal is not objectively unreasonable “solely because the removing party's arguments lack merit, or else attorney’s fees would always be awarded whenever remand is granted”
• “[T]he test is whether the relevant law clearly 11 foreclosed the defendant’s basis of removal.”
• “[R]emoval is not objectively unreasonable solely because the removing party’s arguments lack merit, or else attorney’s fees would always be awarded whenever remand is granted.”
• “[R]emoval is not objectively unreasonable solely because the removing party’s arguments 10 lack merit, or else attorney’s fees would always be awarded whenever remand is granted.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).