Rothenberg v. Marriott International, Inc.

Full title: KAREN ROTHENBERG v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC

Court: United States District Court, D. Maryland

Date published: Feb 29, 2008

CIVIL NO. CCB-08-173 (D. Md. Feb. 29, 2008)

Opinion

CIVIL NO. CCB-08-173.

February 29, 2008

MEMORANDUM

CATHERINE BLAKE, District Judge

On September 21, 2007, plaintiff Karen Rothenberg filed suit against defendant Marriott International, Inc. ("Marriott") in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. Marriott was served with a copy of the Summons and Complaint on November 29, 2007. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), Marriott had thirty days to file a timely notice of removal with this court, ending on Monday, December 31, 2007. Marriott does not challenge the fact that it filed its notice of removal more than twenty days late on January 22, 2008. Instead, Marriott asks the court to extend the time for filing its notice of removal (docket entry no. 8) for good cause shown and excusable neglect, and to deny Rothenberg's motion to remand the case to the Circuit Court (docket entry no. 12).¹

1 Marriott bases its request for an extension of time on 28 U.S.C. § 6(b)(2). Because no such statute exists, the court assumes Marriott intended to rely on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 6(b). It is not clear that the court has any discretion to extend the time of a late filed removal action, which has a clearly stated statutory deadline of thirty days. See Stone Street Capital, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 300 F. Supp. 2d 345, 350-51 (D. Md. 2003). As the remainder of this opinion discusses, however, to the extent that the court could grant relief, Marriott has failed to demonstrate good cause or excusable neglect.

In seeking an extension of time for its removal action, Marriott fails to provide any reason or basis for the court to find good cause or excusable neglect. The only argument put forward by Marriott is that Rothenberg was put "on notice" of its intent to seek a transfer to a federal court by the motion to dismiss it filed in the Baltimore City Circuit Court on December 28, 2007. (Def.'s Opp. Mem. at 2.) Marriott thus argues that based on this "notice," Rothenberg has not suffered any prejudice by the late filing of the removal action. ( Id.)

The motion to dismiss, however, discussed transferring the case on the grounds that the state court was an improper venue or subject to the forum non conveniens doctrine. Moreover, aside from the lack of prejudice argument, Marriott has not articulated any facts that demonstrate good cause or excusable neglect for its delay that weigh in favor of granting an extension. See generally Pioneer Inv. Serv. Co. v. Brunswick Assoc. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993) (articulating factors that a court may consider in determining excusable neglect, including the danger of prejudice to the non-moving party, the length of delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, and whether the movant acted in good faith). "[I]nadvertence, ignorance of the rules, or mistakes construing the rules do not usually constitute 'excusable neglect.'" Thompson v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours Co., Inc., 76 F.3d 530, 533 (4^th Cir. 1996). Thus, "'[e]xcusable neglect' is not easily demonstrated" and the most important factor considered by a court is the reason for the delay. Id. at 534.

Considering these guidelines, the court finds that Marriott filed its notice of removal more than twenty days after the deadline and has not demonstrated good cause or excusable neglect warranting an extension of time. Mere inadvertence, without more, cannot be a sufficient ground for finding excusable neglect. Further, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), Rothenberg is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs related to obtaining remand. See In re Lowe, 102 F.3d 731, 733 n. 2 (4^th Cir. 1996) (noting that bad faith is not a prerequisite to an award of fees under § 1447(c), especially where a cursory examination of a removal action would indicate a material deficiency).

A separate order follows.

ORDER

For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. the defendant's motion to extend time for filing notice of removal (docket entry no. 8) is DENIED;

2. the plaintiff's motion to remand the case to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City (docket entry no. 12) is GRANTED;

3. the plaintiff's request for reasonable attorney's fees and costs is GRANTED;

4. this case is REMANDED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City; and

5. the Clerk shall CLOSE this case.