Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/345

 546US1

134

Unit: $U12

[08-22-08 15:26:08] PAGES PGT: OPIN

MARTIN v. FRANKLIN CAPITAL CORP. Opinion of the Court

Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court. A civil case commenced in state court may, as a general matter, be removed by the defendant to federal district court, if the case could have been brought there originally. 28 U. S. C. § 1441 (2000 ed. and Supp. II). If it appears that the federal court lacks jurisdiction, however, “the case shall be remanded.” § 1447(c). An order remanding a removed case to state court “may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.” Ibid. Although § 1447(c) expressly permits an award of attorney’s fees, it provides little guid­ ance on when such fees are warranted. We granted certio­ rari to determine the proper standard for awarding attor­ ney’s fees when remanding a case to state court. I Petitioners Gerald and Juana Martin ﬁled a class-action lawsuit in New Mexico state court against respondents Franklin Capital Corporation and Century-National Insur­ ance Company (collectively, Franklin). Franklin removed the case to Federal District Court on the basis of diversity of citizenship. See §§ 1332, 1441 (2000 ed. and Supp. II). In its removal notice, Franklin acknowledged that the amount in controversy was not clear from the face of the complaint— no reason it should be, since the complaint had been ﬁled in state court—but argued that this requirement for federal diversity jurisdiction was nonetheless satisﬁed. In so ar­ guing, Franklin relied in part on precedent suggesting that punitive damages and attorney’s fees could be aggregated in a class action to meet the amount-in-controversy require­ ment. See App. 35. Fifteen months later, the Martins moved to remand to state court on the ground that their claims failed to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement. The District Court denied the motion and eventually dismissed the case