Guancione v. Guevara

Background

Rosalie Guancione filed an “EA-100 Request for Elder or Dependent Adult Abuse Restraining Order” against Victor Guevara in Santa Clara County Superior Court. She alleged that Guevara was one of four burglars who, in 2019, entered her property while brandishing pistols and demanded that her tenants leave. She asked for orders barring Guevara from burning her house or using incendiary devices against her property, requiring him to stay away from her, her home, vehicle, and dogs, and requiring him to sell or store his firearm.

The state court issued a temporary restraining order on April 6, 2023. The Government removed the case to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), asserting that Guevara was a former Deputy United States Marshal and that the restraining-order request related to actions he took while assisting the Internal Revenue Service with a court-ordered foreclosure and judicial sale at 560 Hobie Lane in San Jose in October 2019.

Guevara moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and to dissolve the temporary restraining order. Guancione filed motions to strike the removal notice, remand the case to state court, transfer the case to the San Jose division, and change the hearing date. The court treated later-filed versions of the remand and transfer motions as replacing earlier versions.

Removal to Federal Court

The court held that removal was proper under Section 1442. That statute permits a federal officer to remove a civil action relating to an act performed under federal authority. The removing party must show a causal connection between the challenged conduct and federal authority and must identify a colorable federal defense, meaning a legally plausible federal defense that need not yet be proven meritorious.

The court found both requirements satisfied. A declaration from Mark Kolc, the Chief Deputy United States Marshal for the Northern District of California, stated that Guevara was acting within the scope of his federal employment when he and other marshals assisted the Internal Revenue Service at the property. The Government also identified sovereign immunity and the Supremacy Clause as possible federal defenses. The court found that Guancione did not dispute the relevant facts or challenge the existence of a colorable federal defense and causal connection.

The court rejected Guancione’s arguments that removal was improper because the complaint did not present a federal question and the parties were not diverse. Section 1442 can provide federal jurisdiction even when those ordinary grounds for federal jurisdiction are absent. The court also found that the removal was filed in the proper federal district, was timely, and provided the required notices to Guancione and the state court.

The court therefore DENIED Guancione’s motion for remand and DENIED her motion to strike, which largely repeated the remand arguments.

Dismissal and Temporary Restraining Order

The court applied the doctrine of derivative jurisdiction. Under that doctrine, in a case removed under Section 1442, the federal court receives only the jurisdiction that the state court had. If the state court lacked jurisdiction, the federal court acquires none through removal.

The court concluded that sovereign immunity deprived the state court of jurisdiction to issue the temporary restraining order. Sovereign immunity generally protects the Federal Government and its agencies from suit unless Congress has clearly waived that protection. The court reasoned that the challenged conduct occurred while Guevara was acting within the scope of his federal employment and that the restraining-order action should therefore be treated as an action against the United States. Guancione had not shown an express waiver of sovereign immunity, and the record did not show that she interacted with Guevara outside his federal capacity.

Because the state court lacked jurisdiction, the federal court also lacked jurisdiction after removal. The court GRANTED Guevara’s motion to dismiss, dissolved the temporary restraining order, and dismissed the case. Guancione’s motions to transfer the case to the San Jose division and to change the hearing date were DENIED AS MOOT. The court also vacated the scheduled hearing, and the clerk was ordered to close the file.