Whether the Ninth Circuit is employing a new and incorrect standard for remand fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW The petitioner brought a breach of contract action in Nevada state court against the law firm which represented him in a bankruptcy filed by his ex-wife. The respondent law firm removed the case to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada. It took the petitioner the succeeding four years through two appeals and $74,700.00 in attorney’s fees to get remanded to state court. Despite finding that there were no statutory grounds for removal in its first opinion, the Ninth Circuit later denied, in a second appeal, remand fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(@) because the respondent made a “plausible” jurisdictional argument. The question for review is whether the Ninth Circuit is employing a new and incorrect standard for remand fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(¢), which deviates from the standard set by Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005) and creates a split among the circuit courts which have considered how to employ that standard.