Desert Schools Federal Credit Union, an Arizona corporation v. Takysha Tralisa Johnson, an individual; NICHELLE NICOLE BURTON, an individual;

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DESERT SCHOOLS FEDERAL CREDIT
UNION, an Arizona corporation,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TAKYSHA TRALISA JOHNSON, an
individual; NICHELLE NICOLE
BURTON, an individual; ,
Defendants - Appellants.
No. 11-15522
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01482-SRB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 12, 2012 **
San Francisco, California
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
FILED
JUN 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

In this case, plaintiff-appellee Desert Schools Federal Credit Union filed a
claim in Arizona state court against defendants-appellants Takysha Tralisa Johnson
and Nichelle Nicole Burton for breach of contract based on an overdrawn checking
account. Defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona claiming federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. They
argued before the district court that federal question jurisdiction existed because as
part of the state case, the credit union had disclosed a copy of the checking account
contract which referred to the account being governed by United States laws and
regulations and thus that the credit union had somehow “enlarged upon the
allegations” in its complaint to include federal claims. Recognizing that the case
was a “simple claim for breach of a written contract” which manifestly did not
raise a federal question, the district court remanded the case. Two months later, the
district court granted Desert Schools’ motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 11 based on the unreasonable removal and awarded sanctions
against only defendants’ counsel Sylvia Thomas in the amount of the attorney’s
fees incurred before the district court. Ms. Thomas appeals the district court’s
award of Rule 11 sanctions against her on the sole ground that the district court
lacked jurisdiction to enter such an award after the case had been remanded to state
court. For the reasons below, we affirm.
The Supreme Court has long held that a district court retains jurisdiction to

-- 2 of 3 --

impose Rule 11 sanctions even after a case has been dismissed. Cooter & Gell v.
Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 394–98 (1990). Further, this court has held that a
district court retains jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1447(c) after a case has been remanded to state court, as “it is clear that an award
of attorney’s fees is a collateral matter over which a court normally retains
jurisdiction even after being divested of jurisdiction on the merits.” Moore v.
Permanente Medical Group, Inc., 981 F.2d 443, 445 (9th Cir. 1992). In both
Cooter & Gell and Moore, earlier actions had divested the court of jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the cases. Thus, the district court had jurisdiction to
impose Rule 11 sanctions in the amount of attorney’s fees even after remanding the
case to state court.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --