BRUBAKER v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
DANIEL BRUBAKER, 	)
)
Plaintiff 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 2:25-cv-00440-LEW
)
AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, 	)
)
Defendant 	)
ORDER ON MOTION TO REMAND
In this action, Plaintiff Daniel Brubaker presses a solitary Maine statutory claim
under 26 M.R.S. § 631. 	In sum, he claims that Defendant Amazon.com Services LLC
(“Amazon”) is liable to him for failure to produce his complete personnel file. He requests
an award of an injunction requiring the production of his complete personnel file, a $500
statutory forfeiture, and an award of his attorney’s fees. Brubaker filed the action in Maine
Superior Court and Amazon.com removed the case to this Court based on diversity of
citizenship. The parties agree that they have diverse citizenship but disagree whether the
amount in controversy can fairly be regarded as in excess of $75,000.00. See 28 U.S.C. §
1332. The matter is before the Court on Brubaker’s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 9).
As the proponent of federal jurisdiction, Amazon has the burden to establish that
the amount in controversy “exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and
costs.” 	Carrozza v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 992 F.3d 44, 51 (1st Cir. 2021) (quoting 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1)). The standard requires a showing that the jurisdictional threshold will
Case 2:25-cv-00440-LEW Document 26 Filed 02/10/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
be crossed to a “reasonable probability.” Pazol v. Tough Mudder Inc., 819 F.3d 548, 552
(1st Cir. 2016). What Amazon offers is that there might be some recovery other than the
$500 statutory award, without providing any actual cause for that prediction, and that the
probable value of a fee-shifting award will make up the rest.1 	Brubaker argues that it is
absurd to anticipate such a large attorney’s fee award for such a simple controversy. The
parties agree, however, that the potential value of a fee-shifting award is relevant to the
jurisdictional inquiry. See also Raymond v. Lane Const. Corp., 527 F. Supp. 2d 156, 160
(D. Me. 2007).
I agree with Brubaker that Amazon has not met its burden of establishing that the
amount in controversy here could exceed the $75,000 threshold. Where, as here, the case
consists of a solitary statutory claim that does not afford a right to a jury trial and essentially
the entire amount in controversy consists of a prospective attorney’s fee award, removal of
the case from state court was not justified.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c): “An order remanding the case may require
payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result
of the removal.” “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.” 	Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005). 	Given that the
1 The $500 statutory forfeiture likely is not available to Plaintiff, meaning the entire $75,000 amount would
involve the attorney’s fee request. Joy v. Host Int’l Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00407-NT, 2022 WL 4940177, at *11
(D. Me. Sept. 28, 2022); Connolly v. Dorris, No. 2:19-cv-00510-GZS, 2020 WL 3271935, at *5 (D. Me.
June 17, 2020) (citing Boylan v. Foster Carpenter Black & Co., LLP, 2002 WL 1023514, at *1 (Me. Super.
Ct. Apr. 16, 2002)), R. & R. aff’d by 2020 WL 4004796.
Case 2:25-cv-00440-LEW Document 26 Filed 02/10/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
basis for removal was entirely the prospect of an attorney’s fee award rather than any other
substantial probable award, and given the streamlined nature of the claim at issue, I find
that the removal lacked an objectively reasonable basis.
The Motion to Remand (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED. Within 30 days of the entry of
this Order, Plaintiff Brubaker may petition the Court for a fee award under 28 U.S.C. §
1447(c), based on the lodestar method for work related to the remand motion and reply.
SO ORDERED.
Dated this 10th day of February, 2026.
/s/ Lance E. Walker
Chief U.S. District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-00440-LEW Document 26 Filed 02/10/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>