The Roman Catholic Bishop of Monterrey v. Salomon Cota et al

Filing 41

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DENYING Save The Valley, LLC's Motion for Remand of Action 30 by Judge John F. Walter. (See attachment Order further details). (MD JS-6. Case Terminated.) (jp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Case No.

CV 15-8065-JFW (RAOx)

Title:

The Roman Catholic Bishop of Monterrey -v- Salomon Cota, et al.

Date: January 8, 2016

PRESENT:
HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Shannon Reilly
Courtroom Deputy

None Present
Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:
None
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS):

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
None

ORDER DENYING SAVE THE VALLEY, LLC’S MOTION
FOR REMAND OF ACTION [filed 11/13/15; Docket No.
30]

On November 13, 2015, Intervenor Save the Valley, LLC (“STV”) filed a Motion for Remand
of Action (“Motion for Remand”). On November 23, 2015, Real Party in Interest United States of
America (the “Government”) filed its Opposition. On November 30, 2015, STV filed a Reply.
Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7-15, the Court found
the matter appropriate for submission on the papers without oral argument. The matter was,
therefore, removed from the Court’s December 14, 2015 hearing calendar and the parties were
given advance notice. After considering the moving, opposing, and reply papers, and the
arguments therein, the Court rules as follows:
I.

Factual and Procedural Background

On August 28, 2015, STV filed a Motion for Order Allowing Leave to File Complaint in
Intervention in Santa Barbara Superior Court. In its proposed Complaint in Intervention, STV
seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to stop the additional development of property on which the
Indians of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation,
California (the “Tribe”) now operate a resort and gaming facility based on its claim that the property
is not held in trust for the Tribe. On October 14, 2015, the Government, which is named as a
defendant in STV’s proposed Complaint in Intervention, removed the Santa Barbara Superior
Court action to this Court. On November 13, 2015, STV filed its Motion for Remand.1

1

On November 13, 2015, STV also filed a Motion for Order Allowing Leave to File
Complaint in Intervention (“Motion to Intervene”), which the Court addresses in a separate order.
Page 1 of 3

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr

II.

Legal Standard

A motion to remand is the proper procedure for challenging removal. See N. Cal. Dist.
Council of Laborers v. Pittsburg-Des Moines Steel Co., 69 F.3d 1034, 1038 (9th Cir.1995). The
removal statute is strictly construed, and any doubt about the right of removal is resolved in favor of
remand. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.1992); see also Prize Frize, Inc. v.
Matrix, Inc., 167 F.3d 1261, 1265 (9th Cir.1999). Consequently, if a plaintiff challenges the
defendant’s removal of a case, the defendant bears the burden of establishing the propriety of the
removal. See Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566; see also Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th
Cir.1996) (citations and quotations omitted) (“Because of the Congressional purpose to restrict the
jurisdiction of the federal courts on removal, the statute is strictly construed, and federal jurisdiction
must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.”).

III.

Discussion

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), “[a] civil action or criminal prosecution commenced in a State
court against or directed to any of the following may be removed by them to the district court of the
United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending: (1) [t]he United
States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United
States or of any agency thereof, in an official or individual capacity, for or relating to any act under
color of such office or on account of any right, title or authority claimed under any Act of Congress
for the apprehension or punishment of criminals or the collection of the revenue.” 28 U.S.C. §
1442(a)(1); see also Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402, 406 (1969) (“the right of removal under
§ 1442(a)(1) is made absolute whenever a suit in a state court is for any act ‘under color’ of federal
office”); Wright and Miller, 14C Federal Practice and Procedure, § 3655, fn. 26 (“[T]he Supreme
Court apparently is firmly committed to the position that suits in which governmental property rights
are challenged in reality are against the United States and are barred by sovereign immunity”).
Section 1444 states that “[a]ny action brought under section 2410 of this title against the
United States in any State court may be removed by the United States to the district court of the
United States for the district and division in which the action is pending.”
In this case, the Government, which is named as a defendant in STV’s proposed Complaint
in Intervention, properly and timely removed this action to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1442(a)(1) and 1444.2 Despite STV’s argument to the contrary, the Government did not waive it’s
right to remove this action or waive sovereign immunity, particularly in light of the fact that the
claims STV seeks to litigate in its proposed Complaint in Intervention are significantly different than
those litigated in the original quiet title action.
IV.

Conclusion

A more complete factual and procedural background of this action is found in the Order denying
the Motion to Intervene and will not be repeated here.
2

The Government removed this action within thirty days of it being served with STV’s
original Motion for Order Allowing Leave to File Complaint in Intervention on September 21, 2015.
Page 2 of 3

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr

For all the foregoing reasons, STV’s Motion for Remand is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 3 of 3

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr