Andra Lethgo v. Cp IV Waterfront, LLC
23-15583
| 9th Cir. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- Defendants CP IV Waterfront, LLC (dba Kapilina Beach Homes) and GREP Southwest, LLC managed a residential community on Navy-leased land in Hawaii.
- The dispute centers on contaminated water purchased by Kapilina from the Navy's Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam Water System and distributed to residents.
- Plaintiffs brought claims in state court alleging harm from the contaminated water.
- Defendants attempted to remove the case to federal court under the Federal Officer Removal Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).
- The district court found removal improper and remanded the case to state court; defendants appealed both orders.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court, holding removal was not justified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants acted under a federal officer per § 1442(a)(1) | Defendants acted as private entities, not under federal guidance | Defendants operated under Navy lease and purchased Navy water | Defendants did not act under direction or control of a federal officer |
| Causal nexus between action and federal office | No direct federal instruction tied to plaintiffs' harm | Navy lease and water system operation link claims to federal involvement | No sufficient causal nexus shown |
| Colorable government contractor defense | Defense not available; not contractors of military equipment | Navy relationship supports federal contractor defense | Defense not colorable; defendants neither designed nor manufactured equipment |
| Derivative sovereign immunity | Not applicable; no mandatory federal directives followed | Followed Navy's water system standards, directed by federal lease | Not colorable; no full federal control or direction over actions |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Cedars-Sinai Health Sys., 106 F.4th 907 (9th Cir. 2024) (describes removal and remand standards under § 1442)
- County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp., 32 F.4th 733 (9th Cir. 2022) (addresses federal officer removal requirements)
- Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2014) (details burden of proof for federal officer removal)
- Lake v. Ohana Mil. Cmtys., LLC, 14 F.4th 993 (9th Cir. 2021) (explains the 'acting under' standard for federal officer removal)
- Watson v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 551 U.S. 142 (2007) (defines the scope of the 'acting under' relationship for federal officer removal)
- Cabalce v. Thomas E. Blanchard & Assocs., Inc., 797 F.3d 720 (9th Cir. 2015) (limits government contractor defense to military equipment contracts)
- In re Hanford Nuclear Rsrv. Litig., 534 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2008) (explains limits of derivative sovereign immunity for federal contractors)