Jesus Lopez v. Ramon Vaquera
749 F.3d 347
5th Cir.2014Background
- Lopez sues Sentrillon in state court for workplace injury on July 25, 2011 against general contractor on CBP project.
- Vaquera, d/b/a Yucca Contracting, subcontractor, employee injured; Sentrillion seeks FTCA-based contribution and indemnification from United States.
- United States removes to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a) and moves to dismiss via derivative jurisdiction.
- District court dismisses United States FTCA claims and remands Lopez’s remaining state-law claims to state court.
- Sentrillion appeals both the dismissal and remand; district court and court of appeals deny stay and affirm remand.
- Court holds derivative jurisdiction applies to removals under § 1442, not abrogated by § 1441 amendments for § 1442 removals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether remand order is reviewable on appeal | Lopez: § 1447(d) creates appealability for remands under § 1442. | Sentrillion: post-Removal remands are not reviewable except as allowed by § 1447(d) interpretation. | Court has jurisdiction to review remand order. |
| Derivative jurisdiction applies to § 1442 removals | Lopez argues derivative jurisdiction should not bar federal jurisdiction. | Sentrillion urges abrogation for § 1442 removals via § 1441(e)/1441(f). | Derivative jurisdiction remains applicable to § 1442 removals; district court proper to dismiss FTCA claims. |
| Effect of amended § 1441(f) on abrogation | Lopez contends amendment abrogates derivative jurisdiction for § 1442 removals. | Sentrillion argues amendment eliminates derivative jurisdiction only for § 1441 removals. | Amended § 1441(f) limited to § 1441; derivative jurisdiction persists for § 1442 removals. |
| Remand of state-law claims after FTCA dismissal | Lopez: remaining state claims may be kept if supplemental jurisdiction exists. | Sentrillion argues remand improper if no jurisdictional anchor remains. | Remand affirmed; district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if appropriate. |
| Waiver of § 1367(c) challenge | Lopez argues district court erred by remanding without proper basis. | Sentrillion contends § 1367(c) basis was not waived. | Sentrillion waived challenge to § 1367(c) remand basis; remand affirmed on waiver grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Louisiana v. Sparks, 978 F.2d 226 (5th Cir. 1992) (dismissing subpoena against federal officer in 1442 removal)
- Hercules, Inc. v. United States, 516 U.S. 417 (Supreme Court 1996) (sovereign immunity; limited waiver for tort liability)
- Rodas v. Seidlin, 656 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 2011) (derivative removal jurisdiction analyzed as procedural bar)
- Minnesota v. United States, 305 U.S. 382 (1939) (basis for jurisdictional limits on removal and exhaustion of jurisdiction)
- Lambert Run Coal Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 258 U.S. 377 (1922) (controls understanding of jurisdictional limits in removal)