Sharrock v. Worthy Real Estate, LLC
ORDER granting 3 Motion to Quash. Signed by Magistrate Judge James E. Gates on 7/31/2014. (Lee, L.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
On 6 December 2013, respondent Rita Sharrock (“Sharrock”), as plaintiff in a case she
brought in Cumberland County District Court against defendant Worthy Real Estate, LLC,
issued a trial subpoena to Curtis L. Davis (“Davis”), Field Office Director of the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) in his individual capacity. On 17
December 2013, the United States, a nonparty in the state case, removed the subpoena
proceeding to this court (see D.E. 1), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442, and filed a motion to quash
the subpoena (D.E. 3). No opposition to the motion to quash has been filed. For the reasons set
forth, the motion will be allowed.
The subpoena proceeding was properly removed to this court.
provides for removal of “[a] civil action . . . that is commenced in a State court and that is against
or directed to . . . [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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). Section
1442(d) defines “civil action” to include “any proceeding (whether or not ancillary to another
proceeding) to the extent that in such proceeding a judicial order, including a subpoena for
testimony or documents, is sought or issued.” Id. § 1442(d). Davis, as a Field Office Director of
HUD, is a person acting under an officer of the United States in his official capacity, and the
subpoena relates to acts under color of his office. The proceeding removed is one in which a
subpoena was issued.
Although this proceeding was properly removed, sovereign immunity requires that the
subpoena be quashed. A subpoena from a state court cannot be enforced against a federal
employee absent waiver of sovereign immunity. See United States v. Williams, 170 F.3d 431,
433 (4th Cir. 1999) (internal quotations and citations omitted) (citing, e.g., Boron Oil Co. v.
Downie, 873 F.2d 67, 70 (4th Cir. 1989)). “Where the federal government waives its immunity
from suit, ‘limitations and conditions upon which the Government consents to be sued must be
strictly observed, and exceptions thereto are not to be implied.’” Jackson v. Reilly, 2008 WL
706861, at *12 (D.S.C. 14 Mar. 2008) (quoting Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156, 160-61
(1981)). HUD has adopted regulations prescribing a procedure whereby information may be
sought from it. See 24 C.F.R. §§ 15.201 et seq.; see generally 5 U.S.C. § 301 (authorizing
federal agency heads to promulgate rules that govern “the conduct of its employees, the
distribution and performance of its business, and the custody, use, and preservation of its records,
papers, and property”); United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462, 468 (1951)
(upholding the validity of the regulations set forth by an agency head); Boron, 873 F.2d at 69
(“Touhy is part of an unbroken line of authority which directly supports . . . [the] contention that
a federal employee may not be compelled to obey a subpoena contrary to his federal employer’s
instructions under valid agency regulations.”).
In support of its motion to quash, the United States contends that Sharrock has not
followed the procedures established by HUD for seeking information from it. Nor is there any
evidence that the testimony sought falls within any exception to those regulations. See, e.g., 24
C.F.R. § 15.202. By failing to respond to the United States’ motion to quash, Sharrock does not
contest this allegation or the quashing of the subpoena the United States requests based upon it.
The court concludes that quashing the subpoena is warranted. Caljeff, LLC v. A.M.E. Servs.,
Inc., No. 08-4789, 2008 WL 5427637, at *1 (E.D. La. 30 Dec. 2008) (quashing subpoena issued
to HUD where the individuals sought to provide testimony had not been so authorized by the
agency in accordance with regulations at 24 C.F.R. §§ 15.201 et seq.).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion by the United States to quash (D.E. 3) is
ALLOWED and the subpoena is QUASHED.
This the 1st day of August 2014.
James E. Gates
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?