939 F.3d 981
9th Cir.2019Background
- A Grand Canyon helicopter crash killed a passenger; plaintiff Mary Riggs sued Airbus Helicopters, Inc. (AHI) and operator defendants under Nevada law alleging a defective, non‑crash‑resistant fuel tank.
- AHI manufactured the helicopter and was an FAA Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) holder authorized to issue supplemental type certificates (airworthiness/design approvals) under FAA procedures.
- AHI removed the state action to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), asserting it was "acting under" a federal officer (the FAA) via its delegated certification authority.
- Riggs and the operator defendants moved to remand; the district court remanded, finding AHI’s role was regulatory compliance (not acting under) and relied on Seventh Circuit precedent (Lu Junhong v. Boeing).
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed the remand, holding AHI’s issuance of supplemental certificates was mere compliance with FAA directives, not the sort of delegation that satisfies § 1442(a)(1).
- Dissent argued the FAA’s statutory delegation and ODA scheme amount to delegation of legal authority to act on the agency’s behalf and thus satisfy the federal‑officer removal statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AHI was "acting under" a federal officer for § 1442(a)(1) removal | Riggs: AHI merely complied with FAA regulations; not entitled to federal‑officer removal | AHI: FAA delegated authority (ODA) to issue certificates; that delegation means AHI acted under the FAA | Court: AHI did not meet "acting under" prong—its certification role was regulatory compliance, not the requisite delegation to invoke § 1442(a)(1) |
| Whether an FAA ODA/self‑certification equals delegation of legal authority sufficient for removal | Riggs: ODA holders implement FAA rules and operate under FAA‑approved procedures—this is compliance | AHI: ODA authority is a formal delegation to issue FAA certificates, so AHI assists/executes FAA duties | Court: ODA issuance is constrained by FAA approval/review and rescindable; consistent with Watson/Goncalves/Fidelitad, this is compliance, not delegation that satisfies § 1442(a)(1) |
Key Cases Cited
- Watson v. Philip Morris Cos., 551 U.S. 142 (2007) (mere compliance with federal regulation—even if detailed or supervised—does not by itself satisfy the “acting under” requirement)
- Goncalves By & Through Goncalves v. Rady Children’s Hosp. San Diego, 865 F.3d 1237 (9th Cir. 2017) (private actor was "acting under" a federal officer where it had contractual authority to perform tasks the agency would otherwise perform)
- Fidelitad, Inc. v. Insitu, Inc., 904 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2018) (reiterating Watson; private actors must show actions went beyond compliance and were pursuant to directions or formal delegation)
- Lu Junhong v. Boeing Co., 792 F.3d 805 (7th Cir. 2015) (aircraft manufacturer’s authority to self‑certify compliance did not make it a person "acting under" the FAA)
- Magnin v. Teledyne Cont’l Motors, 91 F.3d 1424 (11th Cir. 1996) (holding FAA‑delegated inspector acted under a federal officer)
- United States v. S.A. Empresa de Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense (Varig Airlines), 467 U.S. 797 (1984) (describing FAA certification and delegation context)