Bundy et al v. St. Lukes Health System LTD et al

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - Defendants Motion to Dismiss or Remand (Dkt. #6 ) is GRANTED. All other Motions (Dkts. #5 , #7 , #12 , #18 , #19 ) are DISMISSED as MOOT. This case is REMANDED to the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, county of Ada. The Court retains limited jurisdiction over Defendants request for attorneys fees and for other sanctions the Court may impose. Defendants have 30 days to submit a motion for costs, fees, and or any other relief they seek. Pursuant to local rule, Bundy will have 21 days to respond. Dist. Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1(c). Defendants may elect to file a reply 14 days thereafter. Signed by Judge David C. Nye. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (lm) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
AMMON BUNDY; AMMON BUNDY
FOR GOVERNOR; DIEGO
RODRIGUEZ; FREEDOM MAN PAC;
PEOPLE’S RIGHTS NETWORK; and
FREEDOM MAN PRESS LLC,

Case No. 1:23-cv-00212-DCN
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.
ST. LUKE’S HEALTH SYSTEM LTD.;
ST. LUKE’S REGIONAL MEDICAL
CENTER LTD.; CHRIS ROTH;
NATASHA ERICKSON, MD; and
TRACY JUNGMAN,
Defendants.
I. INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or Remand (Dkt. 6), Motion to
Seal (Dkt. 5), Motion to Expedite and Proceed Without Hearing (Dkt. 12), Motion to
Expedite (Dkt. 18), and Expedited Motion to Clarify (Dkt. 19). Plaintiff Diego Rodriguez
also filed a “Petition to Enjoin Petitioner Ammon Bundy in Transferring From State Court
to Federal Court.” 1 Dkt. 7.
Having reviewed the record, the Court finds that the facts and legal arguments are
adequately presented. Thus, in the interest of avoiding further delay, and because oral
argument would not significantly aid its decisional process, the Court will decide the
Motion without oral argument. Dist. Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1(d)(1)(B).

1

Although Rodriguez uses the term “enjoin,” based on the Petition, it is clear that Rodriguez is seeking to
“join,” or consent, to Bundy’s notice of removal.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss or
Remand. Dkt. 6. The Court DISMISSES the Motion to Seal (Dkt. 5), the Motions to
Expedite (Dkts. 12, 18), the Expedited Motion for Clarification (Dkt. 19), and the Petition
to Enjoin (Dkt. 7) as MOOT. The Court REMANDS this case back to state court. Further,
the Court retains limited jurisdiction over Defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees and for
other sanctions the Court may impose.
II. BACKGROUND
This case began in the State of Idaho’s Fourth Judicial District Court, nearly a year
ago, when Defendants St. Luke’s Health System Ltd., St. Luke’s Regional Medical Center
Ltd., Chris Roth, Natasha Erickson, MD, and Tracy Jungman (collectively “St. Luke’s,”
unless otherwise stated) filed a civil lawsuit against Plaintiffs Ammon Bundy, Ammon
Bundy for Governor, Diego Rodriguez, Freedom Man PAC, People’s Rights Network, and
Freedom Man Press LLC (collectively “Bundy,” unless otherwise stated). In its suit, St.
Luke’s brought state law claims for defamation, false-light invasion of privacy, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, common law trespass, statutory trespass, violations of
Idaho’s Unfair Business Practices Act, violations of Idaho’s Charitable Contributions Act,
and civil conspiracy. Dkt. 6-1, at 4.
These claims arise out of events that took place in March 2022, beginning with St.
Luke’s treating an infant who was temporarily placed in the custody of the Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare due to health and safety concerns. Dkt. 6-3, at ¶¶ 3–4.
Specifically, St. Luke’s alleges that Bundy, in concert with the other Plaintiffs, launched a
smear campaign against St. Luke’s claiming that it was participating in a “widespread
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

conspiracy to kidnap Christian children and traffic those children to homosexual couples
who would then sexually abuse and kill the children.” Dkt. 6-1, at 2. Bundy and his
supporters also blocked an ambulance bay at St. Luke’s Meridian and took other actions
that disrupted operations and caused St. Luke’s Boise to be locked down for a period of
time. Id. Further, St. Luke’s alleged that Bundy harassed and doxed its employees. Id.
Bundy never appeared in the state court proceedings and has been sanctioned
multiple times, including being held in contempt. Id. at 2. St. Luke’s amended its complaint
four times, and ultimately, obtained a default judgment due to Bundy’s nonparticipation.
A trial has been set for July 10, 2023. Bundy states that his nonparticipation was a costsaving strategy, and he argues that the state judge’s delay in entering a default judgment,
and St. Luke’s amendments, prejudiced him.
Bundy filed a Notice of Removal on May 1, 2023 (Dkt. 1), and a Memorandum in
Support on May 8 (Dkt. 2). St. Luke’s filed its Motion to Dismiss or Remand on May 8,
2023, arguing that subject matter jurisdiction does not exist and that Bundy removed the
case to merely obstruct the state court proceedings. Bundy responded in opposition to the
Motion. Dkt. 11. St. Luke’s then filed its first Motion to Expedite (Dkt. 12) noting it did
not intend to reply to its Motion and urging the Court to expeditiously resolve this matter.
Having received all briefing, the matter is ripe for adjudication.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
The “power of removal is not to be found in express terms in any part of the
[C]onstitution.” Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304, 349 (1816). Thus, “[t]he right to
remove a case from a state to federal court is purely statutory and its scope and the terms
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

of its availability therefore are entirely dependent on acts of Congress.” 14C C. Wright &
A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Jurisdiction § 3721 (Rev. 4th ed. 2023). Removal
from state court is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The most frequent type of removal that
the Court deals with is when a defendant in a civil lawsuit removes an action to federal
court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1442. A civil suit must meet certain criteria for a defendant
to do this. Id.
Federal courts “strictly construe the removal statute against removal.” Sharma v.
HSI Asset Loan Obligation Tr. 2007-1, 23 F.4th 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up).
“Where doubt regarding the right to removal exists, a case should be remanded to state
court.” Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003).
IV. ANALYSIS
The Court first addresses the Motion to Dismiss or Remand (Dkt. 6) before
discussing the remaining Motions.
A. Motion to Dismiss or Remand (Dkt. 6)
“Article III establishe[d] a ‘judicial department’ with the province and duty . . . to
say what the law is’ in particular cases and controversies.” Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc.,
514 U.S. 211, 218 (1995) (quoting Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177, 2
(1803)). Notwithstanding this constitutional authority to exercise judicial power, federal
district courts are congressionally circumscribed creatures that have limited jurisdiction.
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). In other words, the
Court cannot act beyond the bounds set by law, for our constitutional republic is a
“government of laws, and not of men.” Marbury, 5 U.S. at 163.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

Having reviewed the complaint, the Notice of Removal, and the rest of the record,
the Court must remand this case back to state court because it lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, and the Notice of Removal is procedurally defective.
1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Federal district courts can only hear cases that arise in diversity or present a federal
question. See U.S. Const. art. III §§ 1, 2; 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Beyond these two
categories, subject matter does not exist.
Diversity jurisdiction exists when there is complete diversity of citizenship between
the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1);
Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). Complete diversity exists if none of the
plaintiffs is a citizen of the same state as any of the defendants. Caterpillar, 519 U.S. at 68;
Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005). In other words, if any plaintiff is a
citizen of the same state as any defendant, diversity is destroyed, and the federal court does
not have subject matter jurisdiction. Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S.
365, 373 (1978).
The diversity statute considers citizenship, not residency, for purposes of
determining whether complete diversity exists. Krueger v. Stively, 2019 WL 1373640, at
*2 (D. Idaho Mar. 25, 2019) (cleaned up). A natural person’s state citizenship is determined
by his state of domicile, not his state of residence. Id. (citing Kanter v. Warner–Lambert
Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). Domicile is the permanent home where the person
resides with the intention to remain or to which he intends to return. Id. A corporation is a
citizen of the state “by which it has been incorporated” and the state “where it has its
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5

principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1); Montrose Chem. Corp. of Cal. v. Am.
Motorists Ins. Co., 117 F.3d 1128, 1134 (9th Cir. 1997).
Here, complete diversity does not exist. Each of the St. Luke’s parties are citizens
of Idaho. Dkt. 6-1, at 8. Ammon Bundy is a citizen of Idaho, residing in Emmett. Dkt. 1,
at 1. This alone defeats the complete diversity requirement. What’s more, several of the
Plaintiff entities are also citizens of Idaho for diversity purposes. Freedom Man PAC is a
political action committee registered in Idaho. Dkt. 6-1, at 8. Further, the People’s Rights
Network, as an unincorporated association, “has the citizenship of all of its members.”
Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing
Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 195–96 (1990)). While the Court does not know
the citizenship of all 60,000 members of the association, it does know that one of the
Network’s members, Ammon Bundy, is an Idaho resident. St. Luke’s argues that
determining the citizenship of Rodriguez and Freedom Man Press is a more difficult task,
but the Court need not wade into this discussion any further. Complete diversity does not
exist. Because the Court finds that the parties are not diverse, the only jurisdictional issue
remaining is whether the case presents a federal question.
2. Federal Question
Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under
the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. It is not enough
to show that the litigation will necessarily engage a federal question. Louisville & Nashville
R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908). The federal question must be the gateway to
the case. See id. Thus, a federal question exists only if: (1) federal law creates the cause of
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 6

action, or (2) a substantial question of federal law is a necessary element of a plaintiff’s
well-pleaded complaint. Coeur d’Alene Tribe v. Hawks, 933 F.3d 1052, 1055 (9th Cir.
2019); Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392. Critically, cases “may not be removed to federal court
on the basis of a federal defense.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987). This is true even
when the federal defense is one that can be readily anticipated by the plaintiff. Franchise
Tax Bd. of Calif. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust of S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983).
In its complaint, St. Luke’s brings claims solely based on state law. For this reason,
the Court is unable to exercise federal question jurisdiction. This is true, even though
Bundy’s Petition anticipates raising federal defenses—defenses that are also available in
state court.
Ultimately, because this case lacks diversity and a federal question, the Court has
no jurisdiction to reach the merits. It must remand the case.
3. Equal Rights Removal
Bundy also invokes 28 U.S.C. § 1443 in his Petition. Under this limited removal
mechanism, a petition must satisfy the two-part test articulated by the Supreme Court:
(1) petitioners must assert, as a defense to the prosecution, rights that are
given to them by explicit statutory enactment protecting equal racial civil
rights; (2) petitioners must assert that the state courts will not enforce that
right, and that allegation must be supported by reference to a state statute or
a constitutional provision that purports to command the state courts to ignore
the federal rights.
Idaho v. Oelker, 2021 WL 126202, at *2 (D. Idaho Jan. 13, 2021) (cleaned up).
Here, Bundy has not alleged that he faces disparate racial treatment and has not
referenced a state statute or constitutional provision purporting to command the state court

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 7

to ignore his federal rights. For this reason, the Court finds that removal is improper under
§ 1443.
4. Additional Procedural Defects
The Court also finds additional procedural defects that require remand.
First, 28 U.S.C. § 1446 requires that a notice of removal be filed within 30 after
receipt of service. By waiting for almost a year into the state suit, and after a default
judgment was entered against him, Bundy’s Notice was filed long after the applicable
deadline.
Second, as corporations and entities, Ammon Bundy for Governor, Freedom Man
PAC, and Freedom Man Press must be represented by an attorney; none can proceed “pro
se,” nor can Bundy (or anyone else who is not an attorney) represent their interests. Dist.
Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 83.4(d). Additionally, because these entities are not represented by
counsel, they have technically not appeared, so they have not given consent to removal
under 28 U.S.C. § 1466.
Third, Bundy failed to comply with the filing requirements, including filing a copy
of the entire state court record. See Dist. Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 83.4(d).
Each of these reasons requires remanding this case.
Lastly, Bundy, Rodriguez, and the Plaintiff entities are admonished that, in the
future, if they are ever in federal court again, they are expected to conduct themselves with
civility as required under District of Idaho Local Rule (Civil) 83.8. While zealous advocacy
is always anticipated, the Court takes great umbrage when parties denigrate or threaten
opposing parties or counsel.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 8

B. Other Motions
Given that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and is remanding this case, all
other Motions are dismissed as moot.
This aside, the Court retains jurisdiction to decide matters related to fees, costs, and
sanctions (if sought and deemed appropriate).
V. CONCLUSION
The Court takes seriously its duty to “administer justice without respect to persons,
and do equal right to the poor and rich.” 28 U.S.C. §453. Regardless of size, stature, or
sophistication, all are equal under the law. All parties are required to proceed in the federal
courts according to the rule of law. “No man is above the law, and no man is below it.”
President Theodore Roosevelt, Third Annual Message to Congress (Dec. 7, 1903). In this
vein, the Court reaches its decision.
VI. ORDER
The Court HEREBY ORDERS:
1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or Remand (Dkt. 6) is GRANTED.
2. All other Motions (Dkts. 5, 7, 12, 18, 19) are DISMISSED as MOOT.
3. This case is REMANDED to the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho,
county of Ada.
4. The Court retains limited jurisdiction over Defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees
and for other sanctions the Court may impose. Defendants have 30 days to submit a
motion for costs, fees, and or any other relief they seek. Pursuant to local rule,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 9

Bundy will have 21 days to respond. Dist. Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1(c). Defendants
may elect to file a reply 14 days thereafter.

DATED: May 19, 2023
_________________________
David C. Nye
Chief U.S. District Court Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 10