[Proposed] Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction — Brandon Joe Williams v. United States Small Business Administration, No. 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK (Dkt. 13-1, C.D. Cal.)
Summary
This proposed order, filed 12/02/24 as Document 13-1 in Brandon Joe Williams v. United States Small Business Administration in the Central District of California, would deny the plaintiff's motion (Dkt. 12) to remand the case to the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles. Under its text, the SBA's removal of the lawsuit to federal court was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). It would find that the SBA is a federal agency under that statute, that there is a causal nexus between the SBA's actions and the plaintiff's claims, and that the SBA can assert a colorable federal defense, citing DeFiore v. SOC LLC, Durham v. Lockheed Martin Corp. and Boules v. United States. The caption lists a hearing on December 23, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. before Judge R. Gary Klausner, and the signature and date lines are blank.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below 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
Case 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK Document 13-1 Filed 12/02/24 Page 1 of 2 Page ID
#:141
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
BRANDON JOE WILLIAMS, No. 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK
14
Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING
15 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND
v. FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
16 JURISDICTION [DKT. 12]
UNITED STATES SMALL
17 BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION,
Hearing Date: December 23, 2024
18 Defendant. Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m.
Ctrm: 850
19
Honorable R. Gary Klausner
20 United States District Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK Document 13-1 Filed 12/02/24 Page 2 of 2 Page ID
#:142
1 The Court, having considered the Motion to Remand [Dkt. 12] this action to the
2 Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (the “Remand
3 Motion”) filed by plaintiff Brandon Joe Williams (“Plaintiff”), as well as defendant
4 United States Small Business Administration’s (“SBA”) Opposition, the arguments of
5 the parties and the papers submitted, it is hereby ordered that:
6 Plaintiff’s Remand Motion is DENIED on the grounds that the SBA’s notice
7 removal of this lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
8 of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California
9 was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).
10 The Court finds that (1) the SBA is a federal agency within the meaning of the
11 statute 28 U.S.C. § 1442; (2) that there is a causal nexus between the SBA’s actions and
12 the Plaintiff’s claims; and (3) that the SBA can assert a “colorable federal defense.” See
13 DeFiore v. SOC LLC, 85 F.4th 546, 558 (9th Cir. 2023); see also Durham v. Lockheed
14 Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247, 1252-53 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Boules v. United States,
15 2:23-cv-08891-CBM-PVCx, 2024 WL 751003, *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2024) (denying
16 plaintiff’s motion to remand action removed under § 1442 because “the entities who
17 sought removal are all federal agencies” and “the plain language of 28 U.S.C. §
18 1442(a)(1) allows federal agencies to remove any civil actions against or directed to
19 them.”).
20 IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
22 Dated: _____________ _________________________________
23 Honorable R. Gary Klausner
United States District Court Judge
24
25
26
27
28
1
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.cacd.947250.13.1.pdf
- Size
- 139,863 bytes
- SHA-256
- a0ec6c57be7271ef9f09b6ae8d8ae0e08af2738f006edf5c835c44cbe853a923
- Original
- storage.courtlistener.com