U.S. Bank National Association v. Donna Amina ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 10 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
U.S. BANK, N.A., as Trustee for J.P. No. 18-16786
Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2006-
WMC2, Asset Backed Pass-Through D.C. No. 1:18-cv-00225-DKW-
Certificates, Series 2006-WMC2, KSC
Plaintiff-Appellee,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
DONNA MAE AMINA; MELVIN
KEAKAKU AMINA,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 2, 2020**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Donna Mae Amina and Melvin Keakaku Amina appeal pro se from the
district court’s orders concerning the imposition of attorney’s fees and costs
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
following the remand of their action to state court. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s award of
fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Lussier v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 518
F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding plaintiff fees and
costs because appellants lacked an objectively reasonably basis to remove the
action, as their argument that Hawaii is not a state is frivolous. See Martin v.
Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005) (“Absent unusual circumstances,
courts may award attorney’s fees under § 1447(c) only where the removing party
lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.”); see also 28 U.S.C.
1441(b) (“A civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of [diversity
jurisdiction] may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined
and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.”).
We reject as meritless appellants’ contention that the district court lacked
jurisdiction to impose fees and costs, and their various contentions concerning the
propriety of the award.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
2 18-16786
Appellants’ motions to file a supplemental brief (Docket Entry Nos. 23, 24)
are granted. The Clerk is directed to file appellants’ Supplement to Opening Brief
(Docket Entry No. 20).
AFFIRMED.
3 18-16786