Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
The plaintiffs are family members of Legend Alfonzo Johnson, who is deceased. They sued San Diego Family Housing, LLC and other defendants in California state court for claims arising from the decedent’s residency in privatized military family housing in the San Diego region. The defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting some basis for federal jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs moved to remand. The case is closely tied to Childs v. San Diego Family Housing, LLC, a Ninth Circuit decision issued in 2025 that addressed whether similar military-housing tort cases against private operators belong in federal or state court. The federal court held a January 7, 2026 hearing on the remand motion.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted remand to state court and awarded attorney’s fees against the removing defendants. Although the order is brief because the substantive reasoning was given on the record at the hearing, two key conclusions appear in the written order. First, the case is “factually analogous” to Childs v. San Diego Family Housing, LLC, the recent Ninth Circuit decision rejecting federal jurisdiction over privatized-military-housing tort suits in similar circumstances. Second — and importantly — the court found that the defendants “lacked an objectively reasonable basis for removal,” which is the legal standard for awarding attorney’s fees under the federal removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
Under Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005), and Ninth Circuit law, a court may award fees on remand only when the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal. The court here found that the defendants did, given that the controlling Ninth Circuit case (Childs) made remand the obviously correct outcome. The court set a brief schedule for fee briefing.
Key Takeaways
- Removing a case to federal court when controlling appellate authority points the other way exposes the removing defendant to liability for the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
- The Ninth Circuit’s Childs v. San Diego Family Housing decision is now controlling in federal courts in California for analogous privatized-military-housing tort cases — these cases generally belong in state court.
- Defendants should evaluate not just whether removal is possible, but whether the removal position is “objectively reasonable” in light of recent appellate decisions.
- Even brief remand orders that incorporate hearing-record findings can carry attorney-fee consequences. Removing parties should not assume that a quick remand is a cost-free outcome.
Why It Matters
This decision is part of the practical fallout from the Ninth Circuit’s Childs ruling. After Childs, most California-based military-housing tort cases against private operators are unlikely to support federal jurisdiction, and removing those cases now carries real fee exposure. For California plaintiffs in similar housing-tort cases, the Johnson order is a useful precedent for both remand and fee recovery.
For California civil litigators generally, the order is a reminder that the fee-shifting provision of the removal statute is not just symbolic. Federal courts in this district will impose fees when an objectively unreasonable removal forces the plaintiff back into state court.