Opinion
23-cv-08891-CBM-PVCx
02-21-2024
MINA BOULES, an individual, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND [34]
HON. CONSUELO B. MARSHALL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The matter before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. (Dkt. No. 34 (the “Motion”).) Paragon Systems, Inc.'s (“Paragon”) and Jonathan Sandoval's (collectively, “Paragon Defendants”) and the Government filed separate Oppositions to the Motion. (Dkt. Nos. 31, 43.) The Paragon Defendants also filed a Joinder in the Government's Opposition to the Motion. (Dkt. No. 33.) Plaintiff did not file a reply.
I. BACKGROUND
On July 21, 2023, Plaintiff Mina Boules, an attorney, filed a complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No. 23STCV17087), against Defendants Federal Protective Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States General Services Administration, Paragon Systems, Lieutenant Lott, Security Officer Sandoval, two individuals referred to as Doe 2 and Doe 4, and Does 6-100 asserting ten causes of action: (1) violation of the Ralph Act; (2) violation of the Bane Act; (3) violation of 28 U.S.C. 1983; (4) Battery; (5) Assault; (6) False Imprisonment; (7) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (8) Retaliation; (9) Negligence; and (10) Negligent Hiring, Supervision, or Retention. (Dkt. No. 1.)
On October 19, 2023, Defendants Federal Protective Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and U.S. General Services Administration removed the state court action to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). (Dkt. No. 1.)
On November 20, 2023, the United States filed a Notice of Substitution pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d) to substitute the United States as the Defendant in place and instead of Defendant Lott for all claims against him with the exception of the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. (Dkt. No. 14.) On December 11, 2023, the Court ordered the caption of this case corrected to reflect the substitution of the United States as a Defendant. (Dkt. No. 22.)
II. STATEMENT OF THE LAW
A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court to a federal district court if the federal court may exercise original jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). A federal court can assert subject matter jurisdiction over cases that involve questions arising under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. An action arises under federal law if federal law creates the cause of action or if the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law. Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 245 U.S. 308, 314 (2005). Federal question jurisdiction will lie over state law claims that “really and substantially” involve a dispute or controversy respecting the validity, construction, or effect of federal law. Id.
The defendant removing the action to federal court bears the burden of establishing that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action, and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.”). Under the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” federal question jurisdiction is present only when “a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). A defense or counterclaim based on federal law does not give rise to federal question jurisdiction. Id. at 10. Whether subject matter jurisdiction exists may be raised by the Court sua sponte at any time, and if it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction at any time prior to the entry of final judgment, the case must be remanded to state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”).
III. DISCUSSION
The Federal Agencies removed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) which authorizes the removal of a civil action that is “against or directed to” “[t]he United States or any agency thereof.” “Courts afford § 1442 a ‘generous' and ‘liberal construction, interpreting the statute ‘broadly in favor of removal.' They do so because the statute ‘vindicates ... the interests of government itself' in ‘preserving its own existence.'” DeFiore v. SOCLLC, 85 F.4th 546, 553 (9th Cir. 2023) (quoting Durham v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247, 125253 (9th Cir. 2006)). Indeed, when the Supreme Court held that federal agencies did not have removal rights under a prior version of § 1442, Congress amended § 1442 to expressly permit removal by federal agencies. Durham, 445 F.3d at 1252.
“A party seeking removal under section 1442 must demonstrate that (a) it is a ‘person' within the meaning of the statute; (b) there is a causal nexus between its actions, taken pursuant to a federal officer's directions, and plaintiff's claims; and (c) it can assert a ‘colorable federal defense.'” Durham, 445 F.3d at 1251 (quoting Jefferson County v. Acker, 527 U.S. 423, 431 (1999)). Here, (a) the entities who sought removal are all federal agencies (the FPS, DHS, and GSA) and the plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) allows federal agencies to remove any civil actions against or directed to them; (b) there is a clear causal nexus between the federal agencies' actions and Plaintiff's claims as Plaintiff alleges that FPS, DHS, and GSA caused him injury by negligently hiring, supervising, retaining, or employing the individual defendants (Compl. at ¶¶ 115-120); and (c) the federal agencies have the colorable federal defense of sovereign immunity and prohibition against being sued eo nominee.
Moreover, under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), federal district courts have “exclusive jurisdiction” over civil actions for claims against the United States for money damages for injury or loss of property caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). Thus, Plaintiff's state law claims regarding the alleged wrongful conduct of federal employees acting within the scope of employment may only be brought in federal court, under the FTCA.
As to the Paragon Defendants, Plaintiff alleges two claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Paragon Defendants. Thus, the Court has jurisdiction over them under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). Reddi v. Hughes & Hughes LLP, 2015 WL 13604253, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2015) (“[T]his Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over [the] 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims because [they] arise under federal law: even if [plaintiff] cannot obtain relief under federal law, the Court still retains subject matter jurisdiction and must decide the merits of [his] federal claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”); accord Quinney v. City of Santa Monica, 2023 WL 5747328, at * 2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2023).
Accordingly, the Court finds the Government's removal of Plaintiff's action to this Court proper.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.
IT IS SO ORDERED.