Mark Walters v. OpenAI, L.L.C.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-13843
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
MARK WALTERS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
OPENAI, L.L.C.,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-03122-MLB
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-13843 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2024 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-13843
Before WILSON, J ORDAN, and L UCK , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Mark Walters sued OpenAI, L.L.C., in state court for defa-
mation. After OpenAI removed the case to federal court, the dis-
trict court issued an order requiring OpenAI to show why the case
should not be remanded to state court due to lack of diversity.
OpenAI responded, but eventually withdrew its notice of removal.
Mr. Walters then filed a motion for costs and fees pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). See D.E. 34. In its remand order, the district
court denied the motion for fees and costs without explanation. See
D.E. 39 (“The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Costs and At-
torney’s Fees.”).
We review the denial of fees and costs under § 1447(c) for
abuse of discretion. See Booknight v. Monroe Cty., 446 F.3d 1327,
1329 (11th Cir. 2006). In his brief, Mr. Walters argues that we must
remand the case to the district court for it to provide some expla-
nation for its denial of fees and costs. See Appellant’s Br. at 10-11.
We agree. As a general matter, the standard for awarding
fees and costs under § 1447(c) “turn[s] on the reasonableness of the
removal.” Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005).
But “[w]ithout any explanation for its denial of a request for fees
[and costs], it is impossible for us to discern the correctness of the
district court’s judgment. It is necessary, therefore, to remand the
case to the district court for an explanation[.].” In re Trinity Indus-
tries, Inc., 876 F.2d 1485, 1496 (11th Cir. 1989).
USCA11 Case: 23-13843 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2024 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

23-13843 Opinion of the Court 3
VACATED and REMANDED.
USCA11 Case: 23-13843 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2024 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --