Order — Brandon Joe Williams v. SBA (C.D. Cal.)

Summary

Civil minutes recording an in-chambers order of U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner in Brandon Joe Williams v. United States Small Business Administration, Case No. 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, filed December 30, 2024 as Document 23. The order rules on the SBA's motion to dismiss and Williams's motion to remand, ECF No. 8 and ECF No. 12. It finds removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) proper because the SBA is a federal agency with colorable defenses such as sovereign immunity, and denies remand. It grants the motion to dismiss, calling the complaint unintelligible and noting that Williams did not oppose the motion, which the court deems consent under Local Rule 7-12. The court dismisses the action in its entirety; the complaint had sought rescission of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan and $2 million in damages.

Summary drafted by a model from the text of the original file linked on this page and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

Case 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK Document 23 Filed 12/30/24 Pagelof3 PageID
#:168

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK JS-6 Date December 30, 2024

Title Brandon Joe Williams v. United States Small Business Administration

Present: The Honorable R.GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Joseph Remigio Not Reported N/A
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendant:
Not Present Not Present
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and

Plaintiff's Motion to Remand [DEs 8, 12]

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

This is an action brought by Brandon Joe Williams (“Plaintiff’)—a “natural person” who,
despite being born in Indiana, identifies as a “foreign national of the Nation of the Amnesty Coalition”
and not a citizen of any state or country, and therefore not subject to this Court’s or any court’s
jurisdiction—on behalf of “BRANDON JOE WILLIAMS ®”—a “public corporation” in Plaintiff's
name that was purportedly created at the time of Plaintiff's birth “as a buffer or flow-through for all
commercial transactions” by Plaintiff. (Compl., Ex. A, ECF No. 1-1.)

In May of 2020, the United States Small Business Administration (“Defendant”) gave Plaintiff
an Economic Injury Disaster Loan. On June 20, 2024, Plaintiff sent Defendant a letter notifying
Defendant that the loan was void and “ordering” Defendant to discharge the loan, according to
incoherent interpretations of the Uniform Commercial Code. Unsurprisingly, Defendant did not heed
Plaintiff's orders. Consequently, on September 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant
in state court, asserting various contract and tort claims seeking recission of the loan and $2 million in
damages. (Compl., ECF No. 1-1.) On November 5, 2024, Defendant removed the action to this Court
pursuant to the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). (Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1.)

Presently before the Court are Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.
(Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 8; Pl.’s Mot. to Remand, ECF No. 12.) For the following reasons, the
Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion and DENIES Plaintiff's Motion. Because Plaintiff's Motion to
Remand challenges the Court’s jurisdiction, the Court first addresses Plaintiff's Motion.

Il. MOTION TO REMAND

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), a civil action filed in state court can be removed if the action is
against “[t]he United States or any agency thereof . . . , for or relating to any act under color of such

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 3
Case 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK Document 23 Filed 12/30/24 Page2of3 PageID
#:169

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK JS-6 Date

Title Brandon Joe Williams v. United States Small Business Administration

office or on account of any right, title or authority claimed under any Act of Congress.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1442(a)(1). To establish that removal is proper under § 1442(a)(1), the removing defendant must
“demonstrate that (a) it is a person within the meaning of the statute; (b) there is a causal nexus between
its actions, taken pursuant to a federal officer’s directions, and plaintiffs claims; and (c) it can assert a
colorable federal defense.” Stirling v. Minasian, 955 F.3d 795, 800 (9th Cir. 2020) (citations omitted).
Unlike the federal question removal statute, § 1442(a)(1) “must be liberally construed in favor of
removal.” Jd. (citations omitted).

Here, Defendant clearly meets each of these requirements. First, Defendant is a person within the
meaning of the statute, as it is a United States agency. Second, there is a causal nexus between
Defendant’s agency actions and Plaintiff's claims, as Plaintiff's claims relate to Defendant’s issuance
and administration of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan. And finally, Defendant has a colorable federal
defense. Namely, Defendant may assert that Plaintiff's contract claims are barred by sovereign
immunity, and that his tort claims fail to meet the various jurisdictional requirements set forth by the
Federal Tort Claims Act. See Vacek v. U.S. Postal Serv., 447 F.3d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 2006) (“The
United States, as sovereign, can only be sued to the extent it has waived its sovereign immunity.”’);
Jerves v. United States, 966 F.2d 517, 521 (9th Cir. 1992) (explaining that the False Tort Claims Act
waives sovereign immunity only if the plaintiff first exhausted his administrative remedies).

Plaintiff does not meaningfully dispute that these requirements are met. Instead, Plaintiff makes
various arguments about the lack of federal claims, Defendant’s status as a federal agency, Plaintiff's
desire to have his claims be governed by the California Commercial Code, the distinctions between
incorporated and unincorporated entities, principles of federalism, and Plaintiffs distaste for the term
“sovereign citizen” —a term used to describe individuals who believe they are not under state or federal
jurisdiction who commonly advance frivolous arguments in attempting to evade taxes, debts, and even
criminal liability. These arguments are meritless and relevant.

Accordingly, the Court finds that removal under § 1442(a)(1) was proper and DENIES
Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.

Il. MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendant moves to dismiss each of Plaintiffs claims, arguing that they are barred by sovereign
immunity and inadequately pled. The Court agrees.

To put it bluntly, Plaintiff's Complaint is unintelligible. Plaintiffs claims rely on various strange,
legally unsound arguments based on commercial codes, citizenship (or the purported lack thereof), and
corporate statuses to conclude that he should be allowed to not just rescind his loan and have his debt
cancelled, but also receive $2 million in unexplainable damages. These arguments are highly similar to
those made by sovereign citizens, which courts have uniformly rejected. See, e.g., Snead v. Chase Home

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 2 of 3
Case 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK Document 23 Filed 12/30/24 Page3of3 PageID
#:170

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK JS-6 Date

Title Brandon Joe Williams v. United States Small Business Administration

Fin. LLC, 2007 WL 1851674, at *3—4 (S.D. Cal. June 27, 2007) (“The complaint is largely
unintelligible, consisting of unrecognizable citations and legal terminology . . . . [T]he Court hereby
admonishes Plaintiff that [her] arguments are legally frivolous.”). The Court sees no reason why
Plaintiff's arguments in this case should fare better. Indeed, Plaintiff does not even oppose Defendant’s
Motion, thereby consenting to dismissal under Local Rule 7-12. C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12 (“[F]ailure to file
any required document . . . may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion.”).

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion and DISMISSES the action in its
entirety.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand and GRANTS
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. The Court DISMISSES the action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 3 of 3


File and source

File

23.pdf

Size

530,372 bytes

SHA-256

17b5a7ca4fced5a3cfe76ac3d49674ff40074459199dcff2219b8f5cdf876904

Our copy

23.pdf

Original

archive.org