Pierre v. Niklaus et al

Filing 11

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND by Hon. William H. Orrick denying 9 Motion to Remand.(jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/17/2013) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/17/2013: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (jmdS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
GEORGE PIERRE,

7

Case No. 13-cv-03803-WHO

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
REMAND

9
JENNY NIKLAUS, et al.,

10

Re: Dkt. No. 9

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
BACKGROUND

12

Pro se plaintiff George Pierre has moved to remand his action for unlawful eviction to

13
14

state court after it was removed to this Court by defendants four employees of the United States

15

Department of Veterans Affairs. See Dkt. No. 1. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds

16

this matter suitable for determination without oral argument and VACATES the hearing currently

17

noticed for December 22, 2013.1 The Court DENIES the motion to remand.
The Court recently denied a motion to remand a similar action filed by Mr. Pierre against a

18
19

different set of Department of Veterans Affairs defendants. See Pierre v. Nicoll, 13-CV-02427

20

WHO, 2013 WL 5402088 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2013). The Court’s order denying Mr. Pierre’s

21

motion to remand in Pierre v. Nicolli is equally applicable to this motion. As the Court explained,

22

Congress has specifically authorized that actions against federal
officials for acts taken under color of federal office may be removed
to federal court. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a), 1441(c), 1442(a)(1). Here,
the United States Attorney has certified pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2679(d) that the VA Defendants were acting in the scope of their
employment as employees of the SFVAMC with respect to the
allegations in the complaint. Dkt. No. 33. This certification is
conclusive for purposes of removal. Gutierrez de Martinez v.

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Mr. Pierre’s motion to remand noticed a hearing for December 22, 2013, a Sunday. The Court
does not conduct business on Sundays. However, since the hearing is vacated, there is no need to
re-notice the hearing for an appropriate hearing date.

Lamagno, 515 U.S. 417, 432–434 (1995). As the VA is an agency of
the United States, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this
action, and removal of this case was proper.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Id. at *1.
As in Pierre v. Nicoll, the United States Attorney has certified pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2679(d) that the Department of Veterans Affairs defendants in this matter were acting in the scope
of their employment as employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs with respect to the
allegations in the complaint. See Notice of Removal ¶ 4 [Dkt. No. 1]. Removal was therefore
proper and the motion to remand is DENIED.
CONCLUSION

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Mr. Pierre’s motion to remand is DENIED
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 17, 2013
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2