Patel v. Hero, LLC

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 31 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DIPAK PATEL, an individual, No. 24-3627 D.C. No. 2:24-cv-02959-SVW-SSC Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MEMORANDUM* HERO, LLC, a California limited liability company; HITESH PATEL, an individual; RAHUL ARYA, an individual, Defendants - Appellants, and PRAVIN PATEL, an individual, DOES, 1- 10, Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 25, 2026** Before: SILVERMAN, N.R. SMITH, and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Hero, LLC, Hitesh Patel, and Rahul Arya appeal from the district court’s order remanding plaintiff’s action to state court and awarding attorney’s fees. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 over the award of attorney’s fees. We review for an abuse of discretion. Durham v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247, 1250 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding attorney’s fees because appellants lacked an objectively reasonable basis for removal. See id. at 1250 (explaining that attorney’s fees should be awarded when the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for removal).

We lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s order remanding the removed action to state court because the district court’s characterization of the remand order as based on a ground enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) is colorable.

See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1447(c) (setting forth bases for remanding an action to state court), 1447(d) (stating that an order remanding an action to state court is “not reviewable on appeal or otherwise”); Acad. of Country Music v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 991 F.3d 1059, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2021) (explaining that § 1447(d) precludes review of remand orders based on one of the grounds in § 1447(c), so long as the district court’s assertion of the ground was “colorable”); Lively v. Wild Oats Markets, Inc., 456 F.3d 933, 942 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining that the forum defendant rule, § 1442(b)(2), is a ground for remand under § 1447(c)).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED in part, DISMISSED in part.

3 24-3627