## Facts

- Gustavo Rossetto worked as a banquet food server at the Turtle Bay Resort from 2003 to 2007.
- The resort charged banquet customers a service charge (about 15–20%) on food and beverage purchases.
- Rossetto alleged the resort retained part of the service charge without paying employees the full amount and without disclosing to customers that any portion would be kept.
- Rossetto filed a putative class action in Hawaiʻi state court asserting state-law claims, including under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 481B-14.
- Rossetto was a union member working under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA); the complaint did not plead union or CBA facts.
- Defendants removed to federal court, asserting federal-question jurisdiction based on LMRA § 301 complete preemption and arguing the claims required CBA interpretation.
- Rossetto moved to remand, arguing removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), and sought fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

## Issues

1. Whether defendants’ notice of removal was timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) when defendants allegedly knew, before removal, the union/CBA facts they claimed made the case removable.
2. Whether defendants had an objectively reasonable basis to remove on an LMRA § 301 preemption theory in light of the asserted state-law service-charge claims.
3. Whether fees and costs should be awarded under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) following remand.

## Decision

- The court granted the motion to remand because removal was untimely under § 1446(b).
- The court held defendants could ascertain the asserted basis for removability from the complaint when considered with defendants’ preexisting knowledge about the union and CBA.
- The court rejected reliance on later filings as the first “other paper” triggering a new 30-day removal period where those filings merely referenced facts already known to defendants.
- The court awarded Rossetto attorney’s fees and costs under § 1447(c), finding defendants lacked an objectively reasonable basis for the late removal.

## Legal Principles

- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), the 30-day removal period runs from receipt of the initial pleading when removability is objectively ascertainable; defendants may not delay removal until they choose to assert a federal theory.
- Facts already known to defendants cannot be used as later “other paper” to restart the removal clock.
- Fees and costs may be awarded under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) when removal is improper and the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for removal, including where removal is untimely and the asserted jurisdictional theory is weak.

## Conclusion

The federal court remanded the putative class action to Hawaiʻi state court because defendants’ LMRA-based removal was filed outside § 1446(b)’s 30-day deadline, and it awarded fees and costs under § 1447(c) due to the lack of an objectively reasonable basis for the late removal.


Rossetto v. Oaktree Cap. Mgmt., LLC, 664 F. Supp. 2d 1122 (D. Haw. 2009)