State of West Virginia v. Crites
2:24-cv-00036
N.D.W. Va.Jan 6, 2025Background
- A receiver was appointed by the federal court to operate and manage the assets of Allegheny Wood Products, Inc. and affiliated companies amid civil litigation concerning their assets.
- Three individuals (Kelly S. Crites, John W. Crites, Sr., John W. Crites, Jr.) were criminally indicted in state court for obtaining money/goods by false pretenses and conspiracy, relating to non-payment or dishonored checks given to log suppliers.
- The logs in question were liquidated by Allegheny Wood Products at the direction of the federally appointed receiver, who considered the logs as collateral for the bank.
- The state prosecutor offered to dismiss charges against Crites, Sr. if he paid restitution, which the federal court had previously forbidden, prompting the defendants to remove the criminal prosecutions to federal court.
- The core dispute was whether the defendants’ alleged acts, performed pursuant to a federal receivership, could subject them to state criminal prosecution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether cases could be removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1442 | Agreed removal appropriate | Agreed removal appropriate | Removal proper under § 1442 |
| Whether receiver was a "federal officer" for § 1442 | No direct argument; referenced lack of precedent | Receiver is a federal officer per precedence | Receiver qualifies as federal officer |
| Whether Crites defendants were "acting under" receiver | Not the focus | Defendants' acts done in aid of receiver | Defendants acted under federal officer |
| Whether a colorable federal defense exists | No direct opposition | Federal Supremacy Clause defense applies | Colorable federal defense shown |
| Whether charged acts were related to receiver’s authority | Not disputed | Acts performed per receiver's court order | Acts related to receiver’s official duties |
Key Cases Cited
- Gay v. Ruff, 292 U.S. 25 (1934) (analyzing whether receivers act as federal officers for removal purposes)
- Hunter v. Wood, 209 U.S. 205 (1908) (federal officer immunity for actions under court order contradicting state law)
- Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U.S. 257 (1880) (rationale behind federal officer removal to protect federal interests)
- Arizona v. California, 283 U.S. 423 (1931) (federal actions shielded from state interference when authorized by federal law)