Coelho v. Chalas

Background

Kelley Marie Coelho filed separate requests for civil-harassment restraining orders in Alameda County Superior Court against Marisol A. Chalas and Joseph Timothy Roberts. The opinion identifies Chalas as a U.S. Army lieutenant colonel and Roberts as a captain, and states that both were Coelho’s superior officers. Coelho sought stay-away orders covering, among other places, her job or workplace, home, and her children’s schools. She also sought orders barring direct or indirect contact through various methods.

Coelho alleged that Chalas and Roberts had harassed, bullied, or targeted her, abused their authority, defamed her, and harmed her military career. The state court denied the requests pending a hearing. The United States Attorney’s Office then removed both cases to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), which permits removal of certain cases involving the United States or federal officers and conduct related to their official duties.

Motions and Legal Standard

The government moved to dismiss both cases under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, based on sovereign immunity, and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Sovereign immunity generally protects the federal government and its agencies from suit unless Congress has clearly waived that immunity. For an official-capacity claim, the plaintiff must identify a statute that waives immunity.

The court also discussed derivative jurisdiction. Under that doctrine, when a case is removed from state court, the federal court lacks jurisdiction if the state court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the case in the first place, even if the federal court would have had jurisdiction had the case originally been filed there.

Court’s Analysis

At the hearing, Coelho confirmed that all her claims against Chalas and Roberts arose from workplace conduct and that none of the alleged harassment was unrelated to work. The court found that the requested restraining orders would restrict the defendants’ activities in the workplace.

The court agreed with decisions holding that sovereign immunity bars requests for civil restraining orders against federal employees when the employees are acting within the scope of their employment and the orders would restrict their workplace activities. The opinion states that there was nothing in the record suggesting that an exception to sovereign immunity applied.

The court rejected Coelho’s argument that the Tucker Act or the Military Claims Act waived sovereign immunity. It explained that the Tucker Act did not apply because Coelho sought nonmonetary relief against individual defendants, and the Military Claims Act did not apply to these requests for civil restraining orders.

Disposition

The court held that sovereign immunity barred Coelho’s requests for civil restraining orders. It therefore concluded that the state courts lacked jurisdiction and that the federal court also lacked jurisdiction under the derivative-jurisdiction doctrine.

Judge Susan Illston granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed the two related cases. She also granted Coelho’s request to remove Document 24 in Case No. 23-cv-04525-SI because it had been filed incorrectly. The court stated that it would issue a separate order concerning Coelho’s motions to seal.