v. National Transportation Safety Board

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 15 MOTION to Quash Show Cause Order; directing clerk to close this case. Signed by Judge Theodore D. Chuang on 8/14/2018. (aos, Deputy Clerk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

IN RE: SHOW CAUSE ORDER DATED
DECEMBER 15,2017
Civil Action No. TDC-18-0128

MEMORANDUM ORDER
On January 12, 2018, the National Transportation Safety Board ("NTSB") removed to
federal court a Show Cause Order entered by the Circuit Court for Montgomery

County,

Maryland (the "Circuit Court"), that ordered the NTSB to designate a person to appear on the
NTSB's behalf and to show cause as to why the NTSB had not yet finished an investigation into
a gas explosion.

Pending before this Court is the NTSB' s Motion to Quash the Show Cause

Order. ECF No. 15. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Quash is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
On August 10, 2016, a natural gas explosion occurred at the Flower Branch Apartments
in Silver Spring Maryland.

Show Cause Order ("SCO") ,-r 1, ECF NO.2. Thereafter, the NTSB

began investigating the cause of the explosion, during which it took certain items of physical
evidence into custody.

Id. at ,-r,-r 2-3.

In November

2016, residents

of Flower Branch

Apartments began filing suit in the Circuit Court against Washington Gas Light Company, Kay
Management Company, and Flower Branch Apartments, LLC, alleging that negligence led to the
explosion, and seeking damages for the harm suffered from the explosion. Id.,-r 4.
On December 15,2017, the Circuit Court issued a Show Cause Order directing the NTSB
to designate an official to appear before the court in order to show cause as to why the agency
should not be held in contempt for its failure to complete its investigation regarding the cause of

the explosion and to provide dates by which the NTSB would complete its investigation and
release the physical evidence in its custody.

Id.,-r 9.

On January 12, 2018, the United States

removed the Show Cause Order to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.c.

S

1442(a)(1). Mot. Quash

,-r 4, ECF No. 15. On February 26, 2018, the United States moved to quash the Show Cause
Order. !d.,-r 5.
DISCUSSION
The NTSB argues that the doctrine of sovereign immunity precludes the Circuit Court
from issuing the Show Cause Order and equally prevents this Court from enforcing the Show
Cause Order now that it has been removed to federal court. Whether sovereign immunity, in
fact, shields the NTSB in this matter depends upon the scope of the Circuit Court's jurisdiction
over the original litigation, as this Court's own jurisdiction over this case is derivative.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,
authority conferred by Article III of the Constitution

"constrained

to exercise only the

and affirmatively granted by federal

statute." In re Bulldog Trucking, Inc., 147 F.3d 347, 352 (4th Cir. 1998). The jurisdiction of a
federal court upon removal pursuant to 28 U .S.C.

S

1442 is derivative of the jurisdiction of the

state court from which the case was removed, in that the scope of the federal court's jurisdiction
is the same as the state court's jurisdiction.

Arizona v. Manypenny, 451 U.S. 232, 242 (1981).

Where a state court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties, the federal court to
which the matter was removed pursuant to

S

1442 also has no jurisdiction, even when the federal

court would have had jurisdiction over the suit had it originally been brought in federal court.
Boron Oil Co. v. Downie, 873 F.2d 67, 70 (4th Cir. 1989). This Court's jurisdiction over this
matter is therefore limited to the scope of the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court for Montgomery
County.

2

The doctrine of sovereign immunity precludes the United States from being subject to
civil actions unless it has expressly consented to such actions.
U.S. 584, 586 (1941).

United States v. Sherwood, 312

"[T]he terms of [the United States's] consent to be sued in any court

define that court's jurisdiction to entertain the suit." !d. The United States need not be a party to
the underlying action for sovereign immunity to be implicated, as an action seeking specific
relief against federal officials acting within the scope of their authority is an action against the
United States. See Smith v. Cromer, 159 F.3d 875, 879 (4th Cir. 1998) ("It is also clear that an
action seeking specific relief against a federal official, acting within the scope of his delegated
authority, is an action against the United States, subject to the governmental

privilege of

sovereign immunity."); Boron Oil Co. 873 F.2d at 70-71 (stating that an action to compel
testimony by a federal official about information obtained in his official capacity was an action
against the United States).
Here, the Show Cause Order seeks to compel the NTSB, a federal agency, to send a
federal official to appear in state court for the purpose of divulging information obtained i~ his or
her official capacity.

This is an action against the United States that is barred by sovereign

immunity, unless the United States consents. Where there was no such consent in this case, the
Maryland Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to compel the NTSB to appear. This Court, in tum,
lacks jurisdiction to enforce the Show Cause Order. Accordingly, the Motion to Quash will be
granted.

See Smith, 159 F.3d at 881 (holding that a state court could not enforce subpoenas

against U.S. Department of Justice employees); United States v. Williams, 170 F.3d 431,433
(4th Cir. 1999) (holding that a state court cannot compel the Federal Bureau of Investigation to
produce documents); Boron Oil Co. 873 F.2d at 70 (holding that a state court could not compel
testimony by a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency employee).

3

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. The Motion to Quash, ECF No. 15, is GRANTED.
2. The Clerk is directed to close this case.

Date:

August

li-,

2018
THEODORE D. CHUANG
United States District Jud

4