The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that where removal was foreclosed by clearly established law at the time the defendant filed his notice in federal court, the Court can award attorneys’ fees under 28 U.S.C. 1447(c) In Wolf vs. Ford Kennelly, 574 F.3d 406 (7th Cir. 2009). The Court considered the circumstances surrounding removal and reviewed the law relative to the award of attorneys’ fees for improper removal. Section 1447(c) provides “an order remanding [a] case may require payment of just costs and actual expenses, including attorneys’ fees, incurred as a result of the removal.” The Supreme Court of the United States subsequently held that attorneys’ fees may be awarded only where the removing party lacked “objectively reasonable basis” for seeking removal. However, the Supreme Court did not define what sorts of beliefs are “objectively reasonable.” The Seventh Circuit in Lott vs. Pfizer, Inc., 492 F.3d 789 (7th Cir. 2007) announced the “general rule” to govern such cases. This rule is:
If, at the time the defendant filed his notice in federal court, clearly established law demonstrated that he had no basis for removal, then a district court should award a plaintiff his attorneys’ fees. By contrast, if clearly established law did not foreclose a defendant’s basis for removal, then a district court should not award attorneys’ fees.