United States District Court, D. Oregon
SHAHRI DANIEL K. LE ROUX ANDREW P. FREEMAN MITRA LAW GROUP
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
MATTHEW C. CASEY PEDER RIGSBY ALEXANDER H. HILL BULLIVANT
HOUSER BAILEY P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CHUGACH EDUCATION
OPINION AND ORDER
J. BROWN United States Senior District Judge.
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Stephanie
Fearey's Motion (#14) to Remand this case to Multnomah
County Circuit Court. The Court finds the record is
sufficiently developed and, therefore, oral argument is not
necessary to resolve Plaintiff's Motion.
reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS
Plaintiff's Motion and REMANDS this
February 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the
Multnomah County Circuit Court of the State of Oregon against
Defendant Chugach Education Services, Inc., and other
parties. Plaintiff alleges she was employed by Chugach as a
Residential Advisor at Springdale Job Corps located in
Troutdale, Oregon. Plaintiff alleges four claims against
Chugach arising out of her employment: sex discrimination
pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes § 659A.030(1)(a-b);
sexual harassment/hostile work environment pursuant to Oregon
Revised Statutes § 659A.030(1)(a-b); retaliation for
reporting unlawful conduct/whistleblowing pursuant to Oregon
Revised Statutes § 659A.199; and retaliation for
reporting unlawful practices under Oregon state law pursuant
to Oregon Revised Statutes §
March 20, 2019, Chugach was served with Summons and Complaint
in the state-court case.
April 22, 2019, Chugach filed in this Court a Notice of
Removal of the state-court case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1442(a) (1) .
21, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand this case to
28, 2019, the Court took Plaintiff's Motion under
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and only have
subject-matter jurisdiction over matters authorized by the
United States Constitution and Congress. Bender v.
Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986).
See also Couch v. Telescope Inc., 611 F.3d 629, 632
(9th Cir. 2010). Thus, the standard of review applicable to a
motion for remand is the same as that applicable to a motion
to dismiss for lack of subject- matter jurisdiction under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Leite v. Crane
Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1121-22 (9th Cir.
2014)("Challenges to the existence of removal
jurisdiction should be resolved within [the] same
framework" as that applicable to motions to dismiss for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to "the parallel
nature of the inquiry.").
motion to remand is the proper procedure for challenging
removal. Babasa v. LensCrafters, Inc., 498 F.3d 972,
974 (9th Cir. 2007). A defendant may remove a civil
state-court action to federal court if the federal court has
original jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. §
1441(a). Removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) is
strictly construed against removal jurisdiction, and federal
jurisdiction must be rejected "if there is any doubt as
to the right of removal." Geographic Expeditions,
Inc. v. Est. of Lhotka ex rel. Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102,
1106-07 (9th Cir. 2010}(citation omitted). See also
Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241,
1244 (9th •Cir. 2009)(citing Gaus v. Miles,
Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)).
is also authorized when the state-court action is against
"[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, sued in an official
or individual capacity for any act under color of such
office." 28 U.S.C. § 1442 (a) (1) (the federal
officer removal statute). Section 1442(a)(1) is interpreted
"broadly in favor of removal." Durham v.
Lockheed Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247, 1252 (9th Cir.
party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing by a
preponderance of the evidence that all removal requirements
have been met. Serrano v. 180 Connect, Inc., 478
F.3d 1018, 1021 (9th Cir. 2007). See also Valdez v.
Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004).
Thus, if a plaintiff challenges the defendant's removal
of a case, the defendant bears the burden of establishing the
propriety of the removal. See Geographic
Expeditions, 599 F.3d at 1107.
noted, Chugach removed this matter pursuant to the federal
officer removal statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). To
invoke this statute, Chugach "must show (1) it is a
'person' within the meaning of the statute, (2) a
causal nexus exists between Plaintiffs' claims and the
actions Chugach took pursuant to a federal officer's
direction, and (3) it has ...