{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca9-24-1256-2026-09-24", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca9-24-1256-2026-09-24)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-04", "fingerprint": "ewai:se:d79eaf", "proof": "sha256:c750e9d9fc2f0b281116d97a3c356824437c84d2b8625bc451f0439cb35db731", "jurisdiction": "se", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor", "contact": "stig@valkiv.com" }, "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "us:ca9-24-1256-2026-09-24", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor", "contact": "stig@valkiv.com" }, "sections": [ { "title": "FOR PUBLICATION", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "LENA CHILDS, an individual;", "paragraphs": [ "para_5" ] }, { "title": "CHILDS, a minor by and through her", "paragraphs": [ "para_7" ] }, { "title": "CHILDS, a minor by and through her", "paragraphs": [ "para_9", "para_10", "para_11", "para_12" ] }, { "title": "LLC, a California Limited Liability", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Corporation; LINCOLN MILITARY", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LP, a", "paragraphs": [ "para_16", "para_17", "para_18" ] }, { "title": "INDEPTH CORPORATION, a", "paragraphs": [ "para_20", "para_21" ] }, { "title": "No. 24-1256", "paragraphs": [ "para_23" ] }, { "title": "3:19-cv-02329-", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "JM-SBC", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "OPINION", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "2 CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "On Remand from the United States Supreme Court", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Appeal from the United States District Court", "paragraphs": [ "para_30" ] }, { "title": "Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Filed September 24, 2026", "paragraphs": [ "para_33", "para_34" ] }, { "title": "Opinion by Judge Sanchez", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "SUMMARY*", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Federal Jurisdiction / Removal", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "On remand from the United States Supreme Court, the", "paragraphs": [ "para_39", "para_40", "para_41" ] }, { "title": "Donald and Lena Childs rented the “Saipan Property,”", "paragraphs": [ "para_43" ] }, { "title": "Coronado. During their lease, the Childs dealt with water-", "paragraphs": [ "para_45", "para_46", "para_47" ] }, { "title": "Family Housing, a public-private venture created by federal", "paragraphs": [ "para_49", "para_50" ] }, { "title": "CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC 3", "paragraphs": [ "para_52", "para_53", "para_54", "para_55", "para_56", "para_57", "para_58", "para_59", "para_60" ] }, { "title": "The panel held that, although federal courts of appeals", "paragraphs": [ "para_62", "para_63", "para_64", "para_65", "para_66", "para_67" ] }, { "title": "The panel affirmed the district court’s conclusion that no", "paragraphs": [ "para_69", "para_70", "para_71", "para_72", "para_73", "para_74" ] }, { "title": "Second, the district court lacked jurisdiction under the", "paragraphs": [ "para_76", "para_77", "para_78" ] }, { "title": "Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, 608 U.S. 1 (2026), the panel", "paragraphs": [ "para_80", "para_81", "para_82", "para_83" ] }, { "title": "4 CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC", "paragraphs": [ "para_85", "para_86", "para_87", "para_88", "para_89", "para_90", "para_91", "para_92", "para_93", "para_94", "para_95", "para_96" ] }, { "title": "Finally, the panel held that the district court did not have", "paragraphs": [ "para_98", "para_99" ] }, { "title": "COUNSEL", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Christian B. Clark (argued), Lenden F. Webb, and Katherine", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "E. Cervantes, Webb Law Group APC, Fresno, California, for", "paragraphs": [ "para_103" ] }, { "title": "Kristin N. Reyna DeHart (argued), Buchalter LLP, San", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Diego, California; Matthew P. Nugent, Gordon Rees Scully", "paragraphs": [ "para_106", "para_107", "para_108", "para_109", "para_110", "para_111" ] }, { "title": "Appellate Staff; Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC 5", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Assistant Attorney General; Civil Division, United States", "paragraphs": [ "para_115", "para_116" ] }, { "title": "United States Department of Justice, San Diego, California;", "paragraphs": [ "para_118" ] }, { "title": "OPINION", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "SANCHEZ, Circuit Judge:", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Plaintiffs Donald and Lena Childs rented military", "paragraphs": [ "para_122" ] }, { "title": "During their lease, the Childs dealt with water-intrusion and", "paragraphs": [ "para_124", "para_125" ] }, { "title": "Plaintiffs, Defendants San Diego Family Housing, a public-", "paragraphs": [ "para_127" ] }, { "title": "Military Property Management, the property manager, were", "paragraphs": [ "para_129", "para_130", "para_131", "para_132", "para_133", "para_134", "para_135", "para_136", "para_137", "para_138" ] }, { "title": "1 On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted Defendants’ petition for", "paragraphs": [ "para_140", "para_141" ] }, { "title": "6 CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC", "paragraphs": [ "para_143", "para_144" ] }, { "title": "Defendant San Diego Family Housing (“SDFH”) is a", "paragraphs": [ "para_146" ] }, { "title": "San Diego, LLC under the Military Housing Privatization", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Initiative (“MHPI”). See 10 U.S.C. §§ 2871‒2885. SDFH", "paragraphs": [ "para_149" ] }, { "title": "(“Lincoln”) to provide property management services to the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Silver Strand I housing community, which includes military", "paragraphs": [ "para_152", "para_153", "para_154", "para_155" ] }, { "title": "Soon after Plaintiffs moved into their home, the property", "paragraphs": [ "para_157", "para_158", "para_159", "para_160", "para_161" ] }, { "title": "After reporting these issues to Defendants, Lincoln sent", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "InDepth, a mold remediation company, to inspect the", "paragraphs": [ "para_164", "para_165", "para_166" ] }, { "title": "InDepth informed Lincoln of its findings, and Lincoln", "paragraphs": [ "para_168", "para_169" ] }, { "title": "After Plaintiffs were told that the remediation service", "paragraphs": [ "para_171" ] }, { "title": "Louisiana, 608 U.S. 1 (2026). We now address our federal officer", "paragraphs": [ "para_173" ] }, { "title": "CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC 7", "paragraphs": [ "para_175", "para_176", "para_177", "para_178", "para_179", "para_180", "para_181", "para_182", "para_183" ] }, { "title": "Defendants immediately ceased paying the Childs’", "paragraphs": [ "para_185", "para_186", "para_187", "para_188" ] }, { "title": "In 2019, Plaintiffs brought suit in state court against", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "SDFH, Lincoln, and InDepth, asserting claims for", "paragraphs": [ "para_191", "para_192", "para_193", "para_194", "para_195", "para_196" ] }, { "title": "U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). Upon removal, SDFH and Lincoln", "paragraphs": [ "para_198", "para_199" ] }, { "title": "Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Constr. Co., 309 U.S. 18 (1940). The", "paragraphs": [ "para_201" ] }, { "title": "We held that the district court’s order rejecting dismissal was", "paragraphs": [ "para_203", "para_204", "para_205" ] }, { "title": "8 CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Following remand, SDFH and Lincoln moved for", "paragraphs": [ "para_208", "para_209", "para_210", "para_211", "para_212", "para_213", "para_214", "para_215" ] }, { "title": "Communities, LLC, 14 F.4th 993 (9th Cir. 2021), the district", "paragraphs": [ "para_217" ] }, { "title": "The district court ordered supplemental briefing and", "paragraphs": [ "para_219", "para_220" ] }, { "title": "Defendants failed to establish that the Saipan Property was", "paragraphs": [ "para_222", "para_223", "para_224", "para_225", "para_226", "para_227", "para_228" ] }, { "title": "U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). Finally, the district court concluded", "paragraphs": [ "para_230", "para_231" ] }, { "title": "846 F.2d 1225, 1227‒28 (9th Cir. 1988). The district court", "paragraphs": [ "para_233" ] }, { "title": "The district court did not address the propriety of that settlement in its", "paragraphs": [ "para_235" ] }, { "title": "CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC 9", "paragraphs": [ "para_237", "para_238", "para_239" ] }, { "title": "Before reaching the merits of these claims, we must first", "paragraphs": [ "para_241", "para_242", "para_243", "para_244", "para_245", "para_246", "para_247" ] }, { "title": "Indian Nation v. State of Wash. Dept. of Revenue, 176 F.3d", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "1241, 1248 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Remand orders based on a", "paragraphs": [ "para_250", "para_251", "para_252", "para_253", "para_254", "para_255", "para_256", "para_257", "para_258", "para_259" ] }, { "title": "Lincoln asserted federal enclave jurisdiction under § 1331 as", "paragraphs": [ "para_261" ] }, { "title": "3 In its remand order, the district court also ruled on Defendants’", "paragraphs": [ "para_263", "para_264", "para_265", "para_266", "para_267", "para_268", "para_269" ] }, { "title": "10 CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC", "paragraphs": [ "para_271", "para_272", "para_273" ] }, { "title": "P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Balt., 593 U.S. 230, 238", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(2021) (explaining that the scope of appellate jurisdiction", "paragraphs": [ "para_276", "para_277", "para_278" ] }, { "title": "We review de novo the district court’s decision to", "paragraphs": [ "para_280", "para_281" ] }, { "title": "456 F.3d 933, 938 (9th Cir. 2006). The defendant bears the", "paragraphs": [ "para_283", "para_284" ] }, { "title": "1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 2014). On appeal, Defendants renew", "paragraphs": [ "para_286" ] }, { "title": "(1) 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the Saipan Property is located", "paragraphs": [ "para_288" ] }, { "title": "SDFH and Lincoln operated under a federal officer’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_290", "para_291", "para_292", "para_293", "para_294" ] }, { "title": "Federal enclave jurisdiction is dependent on the federal", "paragraphs": [ "para_296" ] }, { "title": "See Lake, 14 F.4th at 1003‒04; Paul v. United States, 371", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "U.S. 245, 263‒64 (1963); United States v. Jenkins, 734 F.2d", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC 11", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "1322, 1325‒26 (9th Cir. 1983). The Enclave Clause of the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Constitution authorizes Congress to", "paragraphs": [ "para_302", "para_303" ] }, { "title": "Cession of particular States, and the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of", "paragraphs": [ "para_306", "para_307", "para_308", "para_309" ] }, { "title": "Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-", "paragraphs": [ "para_311" ] }, { "title": "U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 17. Beyond the Enclave Clause’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_313", "para_314", "para_315", "para_316", "para_317", "para_318", "para_319" ] }, { "title": "R.R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525, 526‒27 (1885). And", "paragraphs": [ "para_321", "para_322", "para_323" ] }, { "title": "Defendants’ arguments for enclave jurisdiction over the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Saipan Property do not involve a straightforward application", "paragraphs": [ "para_326", "para_327", "para_328", "para_329", "para_330" ] }, { "title": "12 CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "In 1897, California passed a law ceding “to the United", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "States of America exclusive jurisdiction over all lands within", "paragraphs": [ "para_334" ] }, { "title": "Government of the United States for military purposes or", "paragraphs": [ "para_336", "para_337" ] }, { "title": "56, § 1.4 In 1940, Congress passed legislation applying to", "paragraphs": [ "para_339", "para_340", "para_341", "para_342" ] }, { "title": "371 U.S. at 264; Adams v. United States, 319 U.S. 312, 313", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(1943). The 1940 Act provided that “it shall be conclusively", "paragraphs": [ "para_345", "para_346", "para_347", "para_348", "para_349", "para_350", "para_351", "para_352", "para_353", "para_354", "para_355", "para_356" ] }, { "title": "From 1941 to 1976, the United States acquired the lands", "paragraphs": [ "para_358" ] }, { "title": "4 This state law also required the United States to provide “a sufficient", "paragraphs": [ "para_360", "para_361", "para_362", "para_363", "para_364" ] }, { "title": "CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC 13", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Property, in a series of land transactions as well as by", "paragraphs": [ "para_367", "para_368", "para_369", "para_370" ] }, { "title": "The United States and Plaintiffs rely on a declaration by", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Lonie Cyr, a senior land surveyor for the Navy, who attests", "paragraphs": [ "para_373" ] }, { "title": "Saipan Property is located until 1955 through civil", "paragraphs": [ "para_375" ] }, { "title": "States, because the acquisition of land through civil", "paragraphs": [ "para_377", "para_378", "para_379", "para_380", "para_381" ] }, { "title": "State where [the] lands are situated.” 40 U.S.C. § 255", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(1940). By this time, California had also enacted legislation", "paragraphs": [ "para_384", "para_385" ] }, { "title": "Commission’s declaration that the transfer was “in the", "paragraphs": [ "para_387" ] }, { "title": "Defendants have not offered any evidence that the federal", "paragraphs": [ "para_389", "para_390", "para_391" ] }, { "title": "5 Defendants’ claim that this proffered fact was excluded by the district", "paragraphs": [ "para_393", "para_394", "para_395", "para_396" ] }, { "title": "14 CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Defendants respond that the 1940 Act (and its notice-", "paragraphs": [ "para_399", "para_400", "para_401" ] }, { "title": "States by dredging and filling the San Diego Bay to create a", "paragraphs": [ "para_403" ] }, { "title": "Defendants, the United States “has sole ownership over land", "paragraphs": [ "para_405" ] }, { "title": "F.E.B. Corp., 52 F.4th 916, 926‒29 (11th Cir. 2022) to", "paragraphs": [ "para_407" ] }, { "title": "United States’ acquisition and ownership of land does not", "paragraphs": [ "para_409", "para_410", "para_411", "para_412", "para_413", "para_414", "para_415", "para_416", "para_417", "para_418" ] }, { "title": "States based on California’s 1897 ceding statute. We need", "paragraphs": [ "para_420", "para_421", "para_422" ] }, { "title": "The 1940 Act does not itself define the term “acquire.”", "paragraphs": [ "para_424" ] }, { "title": "6 That case involved a dispute about ownership of an island created by", "paragraphs": [ "para_426", "para_427", "para_428", "para_429", "para_430" ] }, { "title": "CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC 15", "paragraphs": [ "para_432", "para_433", "para_434" ] }, { "title": "HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refin., LLC v. Renewable Fuels", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Ass’n, 594 U.S. 382, 388 (2021) (quotation and citation", "paragraphs": [ "para_437", "para_438", "para_439" ] }, { "title": "(12th ed. 2024); see also Acquire, Black’s Law Dictionary", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(3d ed. 1933) (“[t]o become the owner of property; to make", "paragraphs": [ "para_442", "para_443", "para_444", "para_445", "para_446", "para_447" ] }, { "title": "This plain meaning of the term “acquire” also accords", "paragraphs": [ "para_449" ] }, { "title": "Supreme Court decisions that addressed “controversies", "paragraphs": [ "para_451", "para_452", "para_453", "para_454", "para_455", "para_456", "para_457", "para_458" ] }, { "title": "Id. The 1940 Act achieved this goal by enshrining a", "paragraphs": [ "para_460", "para_461", "para_462" ] }, { "title": "Defendants rely on a definition of “acquire” from an", "paragraphs": [ "para_464" ] }, { "title": "16 CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC", "paragraphs": [ "para_466", "para_467", "para_468", "para_469", "para_470", "para_471", "para_472", "para_473" ] }, { "title": "Even if we were to credit Defendants’ contention that the", "paragraphs": [ "para_475" ] }, { "title": "Act does not apply because there was no “acquisition,” the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "California 1897 statute forecloses their argument. That", "paragraphs": [ "para_478", "para_479", "para_480" ] }, { "title": "Cal. Stat. ch. 56, § 1. If, under Defendants’ theory, the land", "paragraphs": [ "para_482", "para_483", "para_484" ] }, { "title": "Finally, Defendants presented a different theory for", "paragraphs": [ "para_486", "para_487" ] }, { "title": "States retains exclusive jurisdiction over lands created by", "paragraphs": [ "para_489", "para_490" ] }, { "title": "Although § 1313 carves out an exception to the Act’s general", "paragraphs": [ "para_492", "para_493", "para_494", "para_495", "para_496", "para_497", "para_498" ] }, { "title": "CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC 17", "paragraphs": [ "para_500", "para_501", "para_502" ] }, { "title": "Accordingly, regardless of the parties’ competing", "paragraphs": [ "para_504", "para_505", "para_506", "para_507", "para_508", "para_509" ] }, { "title": "The district court did not err in determining that it lacked", "paragraphs": [ "para_511", "para_512", "para_513", "para_514", "para_515", "para_516", "para_517", "para_518" ] }, { "title": "States or of any agency thereof . . . for or", "paragraphs": [ "para_520", "para_521" ] }, { "title": "We first clarify our circuit’s interpretation of the federal", "paragraphs": [ "para_523", "para_524" ] }, { "title": "Louisiana, 608 U.S. 1 (2026). Plaquemines illuminates an", "paragraphs": [ "para_526" ] }, { "title": "We clarify the elements for federal officer removal and then", "paragraphs": [ "para_528" ] }, { "title": "18 CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(1)", "paragraphs": [ "para_531" ] }, { "title": "Before Plaquemines, our cases explained that removal under", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "28 U.S.C. § 1442 required a defendant to show (1) that they", "paragraphs": [ "para_534", "para_535", "para_536", "para_537", "para_538" ] }, { "title": "1247, 1251 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks", "paragraphs": [ "para_540" ] }, { "title": "Within the causal nexus analysis, we required the", "paragraphs": [ "para_542", "para_543", "para_544", "para_545" ] }, { "title": "Chevron Corp., 32 F.4th 733, 755 (9th Cir. 2022). The", "paragraphs": [ "para_547", "para_548", "para_549", "para_550", "para_551" ] }, { "title": "1099 (9th Cir. 2018)). And the “causal connection” element", "paragraphs": [ "para_553", "para_554", "para_555" ] }, { "title": "2023) (quoting Latiolais v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., 951", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc)). Despite the", "paragraphs": [ "para_558", "para_559", "para_560" ] }, { "title": "CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC 19", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Plaquemines involved an environmental suit brought by", "paragraphs": [ "para_563", "para_564", "para_565" ] }, { "title": "Supreme Court articulated the three requirements for federal", "paragraphs": [ "para_567" ] }, { "title": "First, the removing defendant must be the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "United States, a federal agency, a federal", "paragraphs": [ "para_570", "para_571", "para_572", "para_573", "para_574", "para_575", "para_576" ] }, { "title": "The Supreme Court primarily analyzed the “relating to”", "paragraphs": [ "para_578", "para_579", "para_580", "para_581", "para_582" ] }, { "title": "Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 383", "paragraphs": [ "para_584" ] }, { "title": "1979)). A defendant must show “a connection that is not", "paragraphs": [ "para_586", "para_587", "para_588", "para_589" ] }, { "title": "Applying this requirement, the Supreme Court held that", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Chevron’s crude oil production “related to” its performance", "paragraphs": [ "para_592" ] }, { "title": "20 CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC", "paragraphs": [ "para_594" ] }, { "title": "Plaquemines explained that “Chevron’s contract [with the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Government] did not have to expressly direct or invite", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Chevron’s crude-oil production for that conduct to “‘relate", "paragraphs": [ "para_598" ] }, { "title": "Chevron’s crude oil production methods—which Plaintiffs", "paragraphs": [ "para_600", "para_601", "para_602", "para_603", "para_604" ] }, { "title": "See id. at 13 (citation modified). Chevron therefore", "paragraphs": [ "para_606", "para_607", "para_608" ] }, { "title": "Plaquemines also clarified the relationship between the", "paragraphs": [ "para_610", "para_611" ] }, { "title": "Louisiana’s alternative theory that “the removal statute", "paragraphs": [ "para_613", "para_614" ] }, { "title": "Id. at 15. Louisiana accepted that “Chevron acted under a", "paragraphs": [ "para_616", "para_617", "para_618", "para_619", "para_620", "para_621", "para_622", "para_623" ] }, { "title": "The Court observed that the federal officer removal", "paragraphs": [ "para_625", "para_626" ] }, { "title": "CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC 21", "paragraphs": [ "para_628" ] }, { "title": "(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1)). The removal statute thus", "paragraphs": [ "para_630", "para_631", "para_632" ] }, { "title": "Plaquemines viewed the “acting under” and “relating to”", "paragraphs": [ "para_634", "para_635", "para_636", "para_637", "para_638" ] }, { "title": "(such as the production of crude oil) “related to” acts", "paragraphs": [ "para_640" ] }, { "title": "Plaquemines illuminates that our federal officer removal", "paragraphs": [ "para_642", "para_643", "para_644", "para_645", "para_646", "para_647", "para_648", "para_649", "para_650" ] }, { "title": "939 F.3d 981, 987 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing Fidelitad, Inc., 904", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "F.3d at 1099)); see, e.g., Cabalce v. Thomas E. Blanchard &", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Assocs., Inc., 797 F.3d 720, 728 (9th Cir. 2015) (requiring", "paragraphs": [ "para_654", "para_655" ] }, { "title": "Under Plaquemines, however, § 1442(a)(1) removal", "paragraphs": [ "para_657", "para_658", "para_659" ] }, { "title": "22 CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC", "paragraphs": [ "para_661", "para_662" ] }, { "title": "Plaquemines, 608 U.S. at 15. And to satisfy the “relating to”", "paragraphs": [ "para_664", "para_665", "para_666", "para_667", "para_668", "para_669", "para_670", "para_671", "para_672", "para_673", "para_674" ] }, { "title": "In our prior opinion, we required Defendants to show", "paragraphs": [ "para_676", "para_677", "para_678", "para_679", "para_680" ] }, { "title": "1027, 2026 WL 1855130 (U.S. June 29, 2026). We", "paragraphs": [ "para_682", "para_683", "para_684", "para_685", "para_686" ] }, { "title": "Accordingly, we clarify the requirements for removal", "paragraphs": [ "para_688" ] }, { "title": "Plaquemines. To satisfy the requirements for federal officer", "paragraphs": [ "para_690" ] }, { "title": "States, a federal agency, a federal officer, or a person ‘acting", "paragraphs": [ "para_692", "para_693" ] }, { "title": "CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC 23", "paragraphs": [ "para_695", "para_696" ] }, { "title": "Plaquemines, 608 U.S. at 6 (internal quotation marks", "paragraphs": [ "para_698", "para_699", "para_700", "para_701", "para_702", "para_703", "para_704", "para_705" ] }, { "title": "(2)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "We now turn to the facts of this case. Defendants have", "paragraphs": [ "para_708", "para_709", "para_710", "para_711", "para_712", "para_713", "para_714", "para_715" ] }, { "title": "Defendants fail to satisfy the “acting under” requirement of", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "7 Our causal nexus requirement has also been a source of confusion", "paragraphs": [ "para_718" ] }, { "title": "85 F.4th at 557 n.6; see also Petition for Writ of Certiorari at 26, Chevron", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Par., La., 608 U.S. 1 (2026) (No. 24-813)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(observing that the Ninth Circuit’s use of the phrase “causal nexus”", "paragraphs": [ "para_722", "para_723" ] }, { "title": "24 CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC", "paragraphs": [ "para_725", "para_726" ] }, { "title": "To satisfy the “acting under” requirement, defendants", "paragraphs": [ "para_728", "para_729" ] }, { "title": "Philip Morris Cos., 551 U.S. 142, 152 (2007). This", "paragraphs": [ "para_731" ] }, { "title": "(quoting WEBSTER’S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY", "paragraphs": [ "para_733", "para_734", "para_735", "para_736", "para_737", "para_738", "para_739" ] }, { "title": "We have distilled Watson’s language into a set of four", "paragraphs": [ "para_741", "para_742", "para_743", "para_744", "para_745" ] }, { "title": "8 All parties accept that Defendants are “persons” for purposes of", "paragraphs": [ "para_747" ] }, { "title": "9 We exclude County of San Mateo’s addition of the phrase “or in a", "paragraphs": [ "para_749", "para_750", "para_751", "para_752" ] }, { "title": "Rather, the Court observed that some lower courts have held that", "paragraphs": [ "para_754", "para_755", "para_756", "para_757" ] }, { "title": "CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC 25", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(3) “whether the private person is assisting the federal", "paragraphs": [ "para_760" ] }, { "title": "Government itself would have had to perform’ if it had not", "paragraphs": [ "para_762", "para_763", "para_764", "para_765", "para_766", "para_767", "para_768" ] }, { "title": "The relative weights of these four considerations will", "paragraphs": [ "para_770", "para_771", "para_772", "para_773", "para_774" ] }, { "title": "Because this factor so clearly cuts against removal, we", "paragraphs": [ "para_776" ] }, { "title": "Defendants have not shown that their activity of managing", "paragraphs": [ "para_778", "para_779", "para_780", "para_781" ] }, { "title": "Rather, as the U.S. Amici put it, this case is, at its core, a", "paragraphs": [ "para_783" ] }, { "title": "Curiae in Support of Appellees, Childs v. San Diego Family", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Housing, LLC, No. 24-1256, Dkt. No. 30. Defendants point", "paragraphs": [ "para_786", "para_787", "para_788", "para_789", "para_790" ] }, { "title": "26 CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC", "paragraphs": [ "para_792" ] }, { "title": "Watson, 551 U.S. at 150), in the carrying out of these", "paragraphs": [ "para_794", "para_795", "para_796" ] }, { "title": "Goncalves v. Rady Child.’s. Hosp. San Diego, 865 F.3d", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 2017) (noting the “strong ‘and distinctly", "paragraphs": [ "para_799", "para_800" ] }, { "title": "Federal Government from state-court ‘interference with its", "paragraphs": [ "para_802", "para_803", "para_804", "para_805", "para_806", "para_807", "para_808", "para_809", "para_810", "para_811" ] }, { "title": "Government contracted with Defendants to manage the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Saipan Property. Although direct oversight over the", "paragraphs": [ "para_814" ] }, { "title": "MPHI, day-to-day management of the property was left to", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Defendants. See 10 U.S.C. § 2885. The Operating", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Agreement between the Government and Defendants states", "paragraphs": [ "para_818", "para_819", "para_820", "para_821", "para_822", "para_823", "para_824" ] }, { "title": "CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC 27", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Goncalves, 865 F.3d at 1246 (finding defendant to be acting", "paragraphs": [ "para_827" ] }, { "title": "Management (“OPM”) was “responsible for the overall", "paragraphs": [ "para_829", "para_830", "para_831" ] }, { "title": "Second, although Defendants present evidence of federal", "paragraphs": [ "para_833", "para_834", "para_835" ] }, { "title": "Defendants to replace the property manager under certain", "paragraphs": [ "para_837", "para_838", "para_839", "para_840", "para_841", "para_842", "para_843" ] }, { "title": "At the same time, Defendants do not identify any", "paragraphs": [ "para_845", "para_846", "para_847" ] }, { "title": "10 Defendants also invoke their ground lease, which preserves federal", "paragraphs": [ "para_849", "para_850", "para_851", "para_852", "para_853", "para_854", "para_855" ] }, { "title": "11 Defendants identify one letter directive that provides minimum", "paragraphs": [ "para_857", "para_858" ] }, { "title": "28 CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(stating that “compliance” with “federal laws, rules, and", "paragraphs": [ "para_861", "para_862", "para_863", "para_864", "para_865" ] }, { "title": "Riggs, 939 F.3d at 989). 12 Thus, although this factor is", "paragraphs": [ "para_867" ] }, { "title": "Defendants’ evidence of federal oversight does not rise to", "paragraphs": [ "para_869" ] }, { "title": "551 U.S. at 151; cf. Goncalves, 865 F.3d at 1246 (holding", "paragraphs": [ "para_871", "para_872", "para_873" ] }, { "title": "Defendants assert that their strongest evidence that", "paragraphs": [ "para_875", "para_876", "para_877", "para_878", "para_879", "para_880", "para_881", "para_882", "para_883", "para_884", "para_885" ] }, { "title": "12 Although Lake’s causal nexus discussion is irreconcilable with", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Plaquemines, compare Lake, 14 F.4th at 1005, with Plaquemines, 608", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "U.S. at 11, 14, Lake’s analysis of the “acting under” requirement remains", "paragraphs": [ "para_889", "para_890" ] }, { "title": "CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC 29", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Defendants did not act under a federal officer within the", "paragraphs": [ "para_893", "para_894", "para_895", "para_896", "para_897", "para_898", "para_899" ] }, { "title": "(defendants acted under a federal officer when the Navy", "paragraphs": [ "para_901", "para_902", "para_903", "para_904", "para_905" ] }, { "title": "Defendants also do not suggest that the contents of the", "paragraphs": [ "para_907", "para_908" ] }, { "title": "Indeed, the mold management plan states that it seeks to", "paragraphs": [ "para_910", "para_911", "para_912", "para_913", "para_914", "para_915", "para_916" ] }, { "title": "Goncalves, 865 F.3d at 1245). To hold that this open-ended", "paragraphs": [ "para_918", "para_919", "para_920", "para_921", "para_922" ] }, { "title": "Finally, Defendants argue that their management of", "paragraphs": [ "para_924" ] }, { "title": "30 CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC", "paragraphs": [ "para_926", "para_927" ] }, { "title": "(quoting Watson, 551 U.S. at 153). Defendants suggest that", "paragraphs": [ "para_929" ] }, { "title": "Congress crafted the MPHI to authorize private-public", "paragraphs": [ "para_931", "para_932" ] }, { "title": "1005–06. If Defendants were correct that fulfillment of a", "paragraphs": [ "para_934", "para_935", "para_936", "para_937", "para_938" ] }, { "title": "Indeed, our caselaw recognizes that this factor alone is", "paragraphs": [ "para_940" ] }, { "title": "Goncalves, 865 F.3d at 1246; County of San Mateo, 32 F.4th", "paragraphs": [ "para_942" ] }, { "title": "F.3d 387, 399–400 (5th Cir. 1998)) (explaining that a", "paragraphs": [ "para_944" ] }, { "title": "Agent Orange for the Vietnam War efforts because the", "paragraphs": [ "para_946", "para_947", "para_948" ] }, { "title": "Although we interpret the federal officer and agency", "paragraphs": [ "para_950" ] }, { "title": "F.3d at 1252, and “credit the defendant’s theory of the case,”", "paragraphs": [ "para_952", "para_953" ] }, { "title": "Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).” Leite, 749 F.3d at", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "1121, 1124. Defendants’ allegations do not show that they", "paragraphs": [ "para_957", "para_958" ] }, { "title": "CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC 31", "paragraphs": [ "para_960" ] }, { "title": "Mateo, 32 F.4th at 756. Accordingly, Defendants have not", "paragraphs": [ "para_962", "para_963", "para_964" ] }, { "title": "Defendants finally contend that the instant case is", "paragraphs": [ "para_966" ] }, { "title": "SDFH is a federal agency.13 To determine whether an entity", "paragraphs": [ "para_968", "para_969" ] }, { "title": "28. These factors are (1) “the extent to which the alleged", "paragraphs": [ "para_971", "para_972", "para_973", "para_974", "para_975", "para_976", "para_977", "para_978", "para_979", "para_980", "para_981" ] }, { "title": "Regarding the first factor, Defendants note that “SDFH", "paragraphs": [ "para_983", "para_984" ] }, { "title": "13 For purposes of § 1442(a)(1), a federal “agency” is defined as “any", "paragraphs": [ "para_986", "para_987", "para_988", "para_989" ] }, { "title": "28 U.S.C. § 451; see also Lake, 14 F.4th at 1005 (applying § 451 to", "paragraphs": [ "para_991" ] }, { "title": "32 CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC", "paragraphs": [ "para_993" ] }, { "title": "(“BAH”)] . . . something the Navy previously provided on", "paragraphs": [ "para_995", "para_996", "para_997", "para_998", "para_999", "para_1000", "para_1001" ] }, { "title": "Under the second factor, the government’s control over", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "SDFH’s housing operations is limited. As in Lake, the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1004", "para_1005", "para_1006", "para_1007", "para_1008", "para_1009", "para_1010", "para_1011", "para_1012" ] }, { "title": "As to the third factor, which relates to government", "paragraphs": [ "para_1014", "para_1015", "para_1016", "para_1017" ] }, { "title": "Id. at 1006. And Defendants have not presented any", "paragraphs": [ "para_1019", "para_1020", "para_1021" ] }, { "title": "Under the fourth factor, whether any person other than", "paragraphs": [ "para_1023", "para_1024" ] }, { "title": "CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC 33", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Lincoln/Clark San Diego, LLC, retains “exclusive", "paragraphs": [ "para_1027", "para_1028", "para_1029" ] }, { "title": "In Acron, we concluded that the Federal Savings & Loan", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Insurance Corporation was a federal agency based on the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1032", "para_1033" ] }, { "title": "1966), cert denied, 385 U.S. 970 (1966). Acron, however, is", "paragraphs": [ "para_1035", "para_1036", "para_1037" ] }, { "title": "Government has never retained an equivalent interest in", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "SDFH. Rather, any interest the Government retains in", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "SDFH is merely “custodial” or “incidental” in light of", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Lincoln/Clark San Diego, LLC’s exclusive control over the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1042", "para_1043", "para_1044", "para_1045" ] }, { "title": "With respect to the fifth factor, Defendants do not cite", "paragraphs": [ "para_1047", "para_1048", "para_1049", "para_1050" ] }, { "title": "Defendants have not demonstrated that SDFH is a federal", "paragraphs": [ "para_1052", "para_1053" ] }, { "title": "In light of the foregoing, the district court correctly", "paragraphs": [ "para_1055", "para_1056" ] }, { "title": "34 CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC", "paragraphs": [ "para_1058", "para_1059", "para_1060" ] } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "FOR PUBLICATION", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "LENA CHILDS, an individual;", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "DONALD CHILDS, an individual; T.", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "CHILDS, a minor by and through her", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "guardian ad litem, Lena Childs; A.", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "CHILDS, a minor by and through her", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "guardian ad litem, Lena Childs,", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs - Appellees,", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "v.", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING,", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "LLC, a California Limited Liability", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "Corporation; LINCOLN MILITARY", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LP, a", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "Delaware Limited Partnership,", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "Defendants - Appellants,", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "and", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "INDEPTH CORPORATION, a", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "California Corporation,", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "Defendant - Appellee.", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "No. 24-1256", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "D.C. No.", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "3:19-cv-02329-", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "JM-SBC", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "OPINION", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "2 CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "On Remand from the United States Supreme Court", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "Appeal from the United States District Court", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "for the Southern District of California", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "Filed September 24, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "Before: Mary H. Murguia, Chief Judge, and Gabriel P.", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "Sanchez and Holly A. Thomas, Circuit Judges.", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "Opinion by Judge Sanchez", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "SUMMARY*", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "Federal Jurisdiction / Removal", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "On remand from the United States Supreme Court, the", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "panel affirmed the district court’s order remanding a", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "removed action to state court based on a lack of federal", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "jurisdiction.", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "Donald and Lena Childs rented the “Saipan Property,”", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "military housing within the Naval Amphibious Base", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "Coronado. During their lease, the Childs dealt with water-", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "intrusion and mold contamination issues that allegedly", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "damaged their personal property and impacted their", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "health. According to the Childs, defendants San Diego", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "Family Housing, a public-private venture created by federal", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC 3", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "statute, and Lincoln Military Property Management, the", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "property manager, were aware of these issues and did not", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "adequately remediate the problem. The Childs filed suit in", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "state court, asserting negligence and other state law", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "claims. Defendants removed the action to federal district", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "court on the basis of federal enclave, federal agency, and", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "federal officer jurisdiction. The district court concluded that", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "it lacked jurisdiction over the action and remanded to state", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "court.", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "The panel held that, although federal courts of appeals", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "generally lack jurisdiction to review a district court’s remand", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "order based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, an", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "exception to this rule applied because defendants asserted", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "federal officer jurisdiction as one of the grounds for", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "removal. The panel therefore had jurisdiction to review the", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "remand order in its entirety.", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "The panel affirmed the district court’s conclusion that no", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "basis for subject matter jurisdiction applied. First,", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "regardless of the parties’ competing versions of events as to", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "how the Saipan Property came into the United States’", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "possession, the Childs did not provide any evidence that the", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "federal government had assented to exclusive jurisdiction", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "over it so as to establish federal enclave jurisdiction.", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "Second, the district court lacked jurisdiction under the", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "§ 1442(a)(1). Consistent with the Supreme Court’s remand", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "for further consideration in light of Chevron USA Inc. v.", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, 608 U.S. 1 (2026), the panel", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "clarified the elements for federal officer removal and held", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "that to satisfy the requirements for such removal, (1) the", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "removing defendant must be the United States, a federal", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "agency, a federal officer, or a person “acting under” a federal", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "4 CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "officer, such as certain private parties hired to assist federal", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "officers; (2) the suit must be for or relating to any act under", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "color of such office; and (3) the removing defendant must", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "assert a colorable federal defense. A removing defendant", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "need not show that his federal duties specifically required or", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "strictly caused the challenged conduct. Applying this", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "standard, the panel concluded that defendants did not satisfy", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "the federal officer removal statute because they did not show", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "that they were involved in an effort to assist, or to help carry", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "out, the duties or tasks of a federal superior, and that they", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "therefore were “acting under” a federal officer in managing", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "the Saipan Property.", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "Finally, the panel held that the district court did not have", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "jurisdiction on the theory that San Diego Family Housing", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "was a federal agency.", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "COUNSEL", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "Christian B. Clark (argued), Lenden F. Webb, and Katherine", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "E. Cervantes, Webb Law Group APC, Fresno, California, for", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs-Appellees.", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "Kristin N. Reyna DeHart (argued), Buchalter LLP, San", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "Diego, California; Matthew P. Nugent, Gordon Rees Scully", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "Mansukhani LLP, San Diego, California; Don Willenburg,", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, Walnut Creek,", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "California; for Defendants-Appellants.", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "Christina Matian, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP,", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "San Diego, California, for Defendant-Appellee.", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "Daniel L. Winik (argued) and Michael S. Raab, Attorneys,", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "Appellate Staff; Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC 5", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "Assistant Attorney General; Civil Division, United States", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; Tara K. McGrath,", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "United States Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney,", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "United States Department of Justice, San Diego, California;", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "for Amicus Curiae the United States of America.", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "OPINION", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "SANCHEZ, Circuit Judge:", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs Donald and Lena Childs rented military", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "housing within the Naval Amphibious Base Coronado.", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "During their lease, the Childs dealt with water-intrusion and", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "mold contamination issues that allegedly damaged their", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "personal property and impacted their health. According to", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs, Defendants San Diego Family Housing, a public-", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "private venture created by federal statute, and Lincoln", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "Military Property Management, the property manager, were", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "aware of these issues and did not adequately remediate the", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "problem. Plaintiffs filed the instant action in state court", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "asserting negligence and other state law claims. Defendants", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "removed the action to federal district court on the basis of", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "federal enclave, federal agency, and federal officer", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "jurisdiction. After assessing each of these grounds for", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "removal, the district court concluded that it lacked", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "jurisdiction over the action and remanded to state court. We", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "conclude that no basis for federal jurisdiction applies and", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "affirm.1", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "1 On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted Defendants’ petition for", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "writ of certiorari, vacated our prior judgment, and remanded for further", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "consideration in light of Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish,", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "6 CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "I.", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "A.", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "Defendant San Diego Family Housing (“SDFH”) is a", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "public-private venture between the Navy and Lincoln/Clark", "paragraph_id": "para_146" }, { "text": "San Diego, LLC under the Military Housing Privatization", "paragraph_id": "para_147" }, { "text": "Initiative (“MHPI”). See 10 U.S.C. §§ 2871‒2885. SDFH", "paragraph_id": "para_148" }, { "text": "contracted with Lincoln Military Property Management", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "(“Lincoln”) to provide property management services to the", "paragraph_id": "para_150" }, { "text": "Silver Strand I housing community, which includes military", "paragraph_id": "para_151" }, { "text": "housing on Naval Amphibious Base Coronado (“NAB", "paragraph_id": "para_152" }, { "text": "Coronado”). In 2016, Plaintiffs Donald and Lena Childs,", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "with their minor children, leased a home from SDFH at 1333", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "Saipan Road, Coronado, California (“the Saipan Property”).", "paragraph_id": "para_155" }, { "text": "Soon after Plaintiffs moved into their home, the property", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "began to suffer from repeated water intrusion and related", "paragraph_id": "para_157" }, { "text": "mold contamination. According to Plaintiffs, these", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "problems caused damage to their personal property and", "paragraph_id": "para_159" }, { "text": "eventually impacted the family’s health, causing fatigue,", "paragraph_id": "para_160" }, { "text": "shortness of breath, chronic headaches, and other symptoms.", "paragraph_id": "para_161" }, { "text": "After reporting these issues to Defendants, Lincoln sent", "paragraph_id": "para_162" }, { "text": "InDepth, a mold remediation company, to inspect the", "paragraph_id": "para_163" }, { "text": "property. InDepth discovered visible mold in multiple areas", "paragraph_id": "para_164" }, { "text": "of the home and allegedly told Plaintiffs that there “[was] no", "paragraph_id": "para_165" }, { "text": "reason to run any tests” because the mold was visible.", "paragraph_id": "para_166" }, { "text": "InDepth informed Lincoln of its findings, and Lincoln", "paragraph_id": "para_167" }, { "text": "provided temporary relocation assistance to the family while", "paragraph_id": "para_168" }, { "text": "InDepth performed remediation services.", "paragraph_id": "para_169" }, { "text": "After Plaintiffs were told that the remediation service", "paragraph_id": "para_170" }, { "text": "was successfully completed, Plaintiffs requested", "paragraph_id": "para_171" }, { "text": "Louisiana, 608 U.S. 1 (2026). We now address our federal officer", "paragraph_id": "para_172" }, { "text": "removal doctrine consistent with that remand.", "paragraph_id": "para_173" }, { "text": "CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC 7", "paragraph_id": "para_174" }, { "text": "documentation verifying that the mold had been addressed,", "paragraph_id": "para_175" }, { "text": "which Lincoln allegedly refused to provide. Upon their", "paragraph_id": "para_176" }, { "text": "return to the property, Plaintiffs engaged their own mold", "paragraph_id": "para_177" }, { "text": "testing service provider who ran tests that indicated", "paragraph_id": "para_178" }, { "text": "heightened levels of hazardous mold. Plaintiffs told Lincoln", "paragraph_id": "para_179" }, { "text": "and InDepth about the test results and allege that Defendants", "paragraph_id": "para_180" }, { "text": "dismissed their concerns and insisted that the home was", "paragraph_id": "para_181" }, { "text": "habitable. Plaintiffs refused to remain at the property and,", "paragraph_id": "para_182" }, { "text": "after rejecting alternative housing in the same community,", "paragraph_id": "para_183" }, { "text": "Defendants immediately ceased paying the Childs’", "paragraph_id": "para_184" }, { "text": "relocation costs. Defendants allegedly refused to", "paragraph_id": "para_185" }, { "text": "acknowledge the presence of mold and took no further steps", "paragraph_id": "para_186" }, { "text": "to properly remediate the property.", "paragraph_id": "para_187" }, { "text": "B.", "paragraph_id": "para_188" }, { "text": "In 2019, Plaintiffs brought suit in state court against", "paragraph_id": "para_189" }, { "text": "SDFH, Lincoln, and InDepth, asserting claims for", "paragraph_id": "para_190" }, { "text": "negligence, private nuisance, breach of contract, breach of", "paragraph_id": "para_191" }, { "text": "the implied warranty of habitability, breach of the implied", "paragraph_id": "para_192" }, { "text": "covenant of peaceful and quiet enjoyment, and constructive", "paragraph_id": "para_193" }, { "text": "eviction. SDFH and Lincoln removed the action to federal", "paragraph_id": "para_194" }, { "text": "court on the basis of federal enclave, federal officer, and", "paragraph_id": "para_195" }, { "text": "federal agency jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28", "paragraph_id": "para_196" }, { "text": "U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). Upon removal, SDFH and Lincoln", "paragraph_id": "para_197" }, { "text": "moved to dismiss the action under a claim of derivative", "paragraph_id": "para_198" }, { "text": "sovereign immunity pursuant to the Yearsley doctrine. See", "paragraph_id": "para_199" }, { "text": "Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Constr. Co., 309 U.S. 18 (1940). The", "paragraph_id": "para_200" }, { "text": "district court denied the motion, and Defendants appealed.", "paragraph_id": "para_201" }, { "text": "We held that the district court’s order rejecting dismissal was", "paragraph_id": "para_202" }, { "text": "not an immediately appealable collateral order and", "paragraph_id": "para_203" }, { "text": "dismissed the appeal. See Childs v. San Diego Fam. Hous.", "paragraph_id": "para_204" }, { "text": "LLC, 22 F.4th 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2022).", "paragraph_id": "para_205" }, { "text": "8 CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC", "paragraph_id": "para_206" }, { "text": "Following remand, SDFH and Lincoln moved for", "paragraph_id": "para_207" }, { "text": "summary judgment on the grounds that Yearsley provided", "paragraph_id": "para_208" }, { "text": "them derivative sovereign immunity and that the legal effect", "paragraph_id": "para_209" }, { "text": "of federal enclave jurisdiction precluded most of Plaintiffs’", "paragraph_id": "para_210" }, { "text": "state law claims.2 The United States then filed a Statement", "paragraph_id": "para_211" }, { "text": "of Interest before the district court asserting that (1) Yearsley", "paragraph_id": "para_212" }, { "text": "did not apply to Defendants, (2) the Saipan Property was not", "paragraph_id": "para_213" }, { "text": "within a federal enclave, and (3) under this court’s", "paragraph_id": "para_214" }, { "text": "intervening precedent in Lake v. Ohana Military", "paragraph_id": "para_215" }, { "text": "Communities, LLC, 14 F.4th 993 (9th Cir. 2021), the district", "paragraph_id": "para_216" }, { "text": "court lacked federal officer or agency jurisdiction.", "paragraph_id": "para_217" }, { "text": "The district court ordered supplemental briefing and", "paragraph_id": "para_218" }, { "text": "eventually rejected all of Defendants’ proffered grounds for", "paragraph_id": "para_219" }, { "text": "federal jurisdiction. Specifically, the district court found that", "paragraph_id": "para_220" }, { "text": "Defendants failed to establish that the Saipan Property was", "paragraph_id": "para_221" }, { "text": "within a federal enclave because there was no evidence that", "paragraph_id": "para_222" }, { "text": "the United States had retained or assented to exclusive", "paragraph_id": "para_223" }, { "text": "federal jurisdiction over the property. Next, the district court", "paragraph_id": "para_224" }, { "text": "concluded that Defendants failed to show the requisite causal", "paragraph_id": "para_225" }, { "text": "nexus between the challenged actions and the federal", "paragraph_id": "para_226" }, { "text": "government’s involvement in Defendants’ housing", "paragraph_id": "para_227" }, { "text": "management to establish federal officer jurisdiction under 28", "paragraph_id": "para_228" }, { "text": "U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). Finally, the district court concluded", "paragraph_id": "para_229" }, { "text": "that Defendants were unable to establish federal agency", "paragraph_id": "para_230" }, { "text": "jurisdiction under the six-factor test of In re Hoag Ranches,", "paragraph_id": "para_231" }, { "text": "846 F.2d 1225, 1227‒28 (9th Cir. 1988). The district court", "paragraph_id": "para_232" }, { "text": "2 SDFH and Lincoln also challenged Plaintiffs’ settlement with InDepth.", "paragraph_id": "para_233" }, { "text": "The district court did not address the propriety of that settlement in its", "paragraph_id": "para_234" }, { "text": "remand order, and Defendants do not seek review of this issue on appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_235" }, { "text": "CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC 9", "paragraph_id": "para_236" }, { "text": "remanded the case to state court. 3 Defendants timely", "paragraph_id": "para_237" }, { "text": "appealed.", "paragraph_id": "para_238" }, { "text": "II.", "paragraph_id": "para_239" }, { "text": "Before reaching the merits of these claims, we must first", "paragraph_id": "para_240" }, { "text": "assess our appellate jurisdiction to review the district court’s", "paragraph_id": "para_241" }, { "text": "remand order. Federal courts of appeals generally lack", "paragraph_id": "para_242" }, { "text": "jurisdiction to review a district court’s remand order based", "paragraph_id": "para_243" }, { "text": "on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_244" }, { "text": "§ 1447(d) (“An order remanding a case to the State court", "paragraph_id": "para_245" }, { "text": "from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or", "paragraph_id": "para_246" }, { "text": "otherwise,” subject to certain exceptions); see also Yakama", "paragraph_id": "para_247" }, { "text": "Indian Nation v. State of Wash. Dept. of Revenue, 176 F.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_248" }, { "text": "1241, 1248 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Remand orders based on a", "paragraph_id": "para_249" }, { "text": "defect in removal procedure or lack of subject matter", "paragraph_id": "para_250" }, { "text": "jurisdiction are immune from review even if the district", "paragraph_id": "para_251" }, { "text": "court’s order is erroneous.”). Nonetheless, § 1447(d)", "paragraph_id": "para_252" }, { "text": "provides for two exceptions to this bar. Under the statute, a", "paragraph_id": "para_253" }, { "text": "remand order is reviewable for actions initially removed", "paragraph_id": "para_254" }, { "text": "pursuant to the federal officer removal statute codified at", "paragraph_id": "para_255" }, { "text": "§ 1442. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (“[A]n order remanding a", "paragraph_id": "para_256" }, { "text": "case to the State court from which it was removed pursuant", "paragraph_id": "para_257" }, { "text": "to section 1442 or 1443 of this title shall be reviewable by", "paragraph_id": "para_258" }, { "text": "appeal or otherwise.”). In their notice of removal, SDFH and", "paragraph_id": "para_259" }, { "text": "Lincoln asserted federal enclave jurisdiction under § 1331 as", "paragraph_id": "para_260" }, { "text": "well as federal officer and federal agency jurisdiction under", "paragraph_id": "para_261" }, { "text": "3 In its remand order, the district court also ruled on Defendants’", "paragraph_id": "para_262" }, { "text": "evidentiary objections, sustaining their objection to an unauthenticated", "paragraph_id": "para_263" }, { "text": "parcel map of NAB Coronado, thereby declining to take judicial notice", "paragraph_id": "para_264" }, { "text": "of the parcel map. The district court also sustained, in part, Defendants’", "paragraph_id": "para_265" }, { "text": "objections to the declaration of a senior land surveyor, Lonie Cyr,", "paragraph_id": "para_266" }, { "text": "determining that legal conclusions as to whether the federal government", "paragraph_id": "para_267" }, { "text": "exercises exclusive jurisdiction over the Saipan Property were improper", "paragraph_id": "para_268" }, { "text": "witness testimony.", "paragraph_id": "para_269" }, { "text": "10 CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC", "paragraph_id": "para_270" }, { "text": "§ 1442(a)(1). Because one of the asserted grounds for", "paragraph_id": "para_271" }, { "text": "removal was § 1442, we have jurisdiction to review the", "paragraph_id": "para_272" }, { "text": "remand order in its entirety. Id. § 1447(d); see also BP", "paragraph_id": "para_273" }, { "text": "P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Balt., 593 U.S. 230, 238", "paragraph_id": "para_274" }, { "text": "(2021) (explaining that the scope of appellate jurisdiction", "paragraph_id": "para_275" }, { "text": "extends to the “whole of [the district court’s] order” when a", "paragraph_id": "para_276" }, { "text": "defendant cites § 1442 as a ground for removal).", "paragraph_id": "para_277" }, { "text": "III.", "paragraph_id": "para_278" }, { "text": "We review de novo the district court’s decision to", "paragraph_id": "para_279" }, { "text": "remand a removed case and its determination that it lacks", "paragraph_id": "para_280" }, { "text": "subject matter jurisdiction. Lively v. Wild Oats Mkts., Inc.", "paragraph_id": "para_281" }, { "text": "456 F.3d 933, 938 (9th Cir. 2006). The defendant bears the", "paragraph_id": "para_282" }, { "text": "burden of proving that the requirements for removal", "paragraph_id": "para_283" }, { "text": "jurisdiction have been met. Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_284" }, { "text": "1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 2014). On appeal, Defendants renew", "paragraph_id": "para_285" }, { "text": "their contentions that subject matter jurisdiction exists under", "paragraph_id": "para_286" }, { "text": "(1) 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the Saipan Property is located", "paragraph_id": "para_287" }, { "text": "within a federal enclave, (2) 28 U.S.C. § 1442 because", "paragraph_id": "para_288" }, { "text": "SDFH and Lincoln operated under a federal officer’s", "paragraph_id": "para_289" }, { "text": "oversight and control in dealing with the Childs’ complaints,", "paragraph_id": "para_290" }, { "text": "and (3) 28 U.S.C. § 1442 because SDFH qualifies as a", "paragraph_id": "para_291" }, { "text": "federal agency. We consider each of these arguments in", "paragraph_id": "para_292" }, { "text": "turn.", "paragraph_id": "para_293" }, { "text": "A.", "paragraph_id": "para_294" }, { "text": "Federal enclave jurisdiction is dependent on the federal", "paragraph_id": "para_295" }, { "text": "government’s exercise of exclusive legislative jurisdiction.", "paragraph_id": "para_296" }, { "text": "See Lake, 14 F.4th at 1003‒04; Paul v. United States, 371", "paragraph_id": "para_297" }, { "text": "U.S. 245, 263‒64 (1963); United States v. Jenkins, 734 F.2d", "paragraph_id": "para_298" }, { "text": "CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC 11", "paragraph_id": "para_299" }, { "text": "1322, 1325‒26 (9th Cir. 1983). The Enclave Clause of the", "paragraph_id": "para_300" }, { "text": "Constitution authorizes Congress to", "paragraph_id": "para_301" }, { "text": "exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases", "paragraph_id": "para_302" }, { "text": "whatsoever, over such District . . . as may, by", "paragraph_id": "para_303" }, { "text": "Cession of particular States, and the", "paragraph_id": "para_304" }, { "text": "Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of", "paragraph_id": "para_305" }, { "text": "the Government of the United States, and to", "paragraph_id": "para_306" }, { "text": "exercise like Authority over all Places", "paragraph_id": "para_307" }, { "text": "purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of", "paragraph_id": "para_308" }, { "text": "the State in which the Same shall be, for the", "paragraph_id": "para_309" }, { "text": "Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-", "paragraph_id": "para_310" }, { "text": "Yards, and other needful Buildings.", "paragraph_id": "para_311" }, { "text": "U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 17. Beyond the Enclave Clause’s", "paragraph_id": "para_312" }, { "text": "specified method of establishing exclusive federal", "paragraph_id": "para_313" }, { "text": "jurisdiction through the purchase of land with a state’s", "paragraph_id": "para_314" }, { "text": "consent, the Supreme Court has also recognized two other", "paragraph_id": "para_315" }, { "text": "methods by which the federal government can acquire", "paragraph_id": "para_316" }, { "text": "exclusive jurisdiction over land. First, Congress may", "paragraph_id": "para_317" }, { "text": "condition the admission of a state to the Union on a cession", "paragraph_id": "para_318" }, { "text": "of jurisdiction of land within that state. Fort Leavenworth", "paragraph_id": "para_319" }, { "text": "R.R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525, 526‒27 (1885). And", "paragraph_id": "para_320" }, { "text": "second, states themselves may cede legislative jurisdiction", "paragraph_id": "para_321" }, { "text": "over land within their borders to the federal government. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_322" }, { "text": "at 540–42.", "paragraph_id": "para_323" }, { "text": "Defendants’ arguments for enclave jurisdiction over the", "paragraph_id": "para_324" }, { "text": "Saipan Property do not involve a straightforward application", "paragraph_id": "para_325" }, { "text": "of any of these methods. Instead, Defendants rely on an", "paragraph_id": "para_326" }, { "text": "intricate web of state and federal statutes to support their", "paragraph_id": "para_327" }, { "text": "theory. Therefore, to determine whether federal enclave", "paragraph_id": "para_328" }, { "text": "jurisdiction exists over the Saipan Property requires a brief", "paragraph_id": "para_329" }, { "text": "historical detour.", "paragraph_id": "para_330" }, { "text": "12 CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC", "paragraph_id": "para_331" }, { "text": "In 1897, California passed a law ceding “to the United", "paragraph_id": "para_332" }, { "text": "States of America exclusive jurisdiction over all lands within", "paragraph_id": "para_333" }, { "text": "this State now held, occupied, or reserved by the", "paragraph_id": "para_334" }, { "text": "Government of the United States for military purposes or", "paragraph_id": "para_335" }, { "text": "defense, or which may hereafter be ceded or conveyed to", "paragraph_id": "para_336" }, { "text": "said United States for such purposes.” 1897 Cal. Stat. ch.", "paragraph_id": "para_337" }, { "text": "56, § 1.4 In 1940, Congress passed legislation applying to", "paragraph_id": "para_338" }, { "text": "land acquired thereafter which required the federal", "paragraph_id": "para_339" }, { "text": "government’s assent to exclusive or partial jurisdiction over", "paragraph_id": "para_340" }, { "text": "federal property located within state boundaries. See 40", "paragraph_id": "para_341" }, { "text": "U.S.C. § 255 (1940) (re-codified at 40 U.S.C. § 3112); Paul,", "paragraph_id": "para_342" }, { "text": "371 U.S. at 264; Adams v. United States, 319 U.S. 312, 313", "paragraph_id": "para_343" }, { "text": "(1943). The 1940 Act provided that “it shall be conclusively", "paragraph_id": "para_344" }, { "text": "presumed that no [exclusive or partial] jurisdiction has been", "paragraph_id": "para_345" }, { "text": "accepted,” “[u]nless and until the United States has accepted", "paragraph_id": "para_346" }, { "text": "jurisdiction over lands hereafter to be acquired.” 40 U.S.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_347" }, { "text": "§ 255 (1940). The 1940 Act mandated that the federal", "paragraph_id": "para_348" }, { "text": "government indicate its acceptance of jurisdiction by “filing", "paragraph_id": "para_349" }, { "text": "a notice of such acceptance with the Governor of such State", "paragraph_id": "para_350" }, { "text": "or in such other manner as may be prescribed by the laws of", "paragraph_id": "para_351" }, { "text": "the State where such lands are situated.” Id. Following re-", "paragraph_id": "para_352" }, { "text": "codification, the statutory text makes clear that “[i]t is not", "paragraph_id": "para_353" }, { "text": "required that the Federal Government obtain exclusive", "paragraph_id": "para_354" }, { "text": "jurisdiction in the United States over land or an interest in", "paragraph_id": "para_355" }, { "text": "land it acquires.” 40 U.S.C. § 3112(a).", "paragraph_id": "para_356" }, { "text": "From 1941 to 1976, the United States acquired the lands", "paragraph_id": "para_357" }, { "text": "now comprising NAB Coronado, including the Saipan", "paragraph_id": "para_358" }, { "text": "4 This state law also required the United States to provide “a sufficient", "paragraph_id": "para_359" }, { "text": "description by metes and bounds” of the land and that “a map or plat of", "paragraph_id": "para_360" }, { "text": "such lands” be filed in “the proper office of record in the county” in", "paragraph_id": "para_361" }, { "text": "which the land is located. 1897 Cal. Stat. ch. 56, § 1. The statute was", "paragraph_id": "para_362" }, { "text": "amended with minor modifications in 1943, see 1943 Cal. Stat. ch. 134", "paragraph_id": "para_363" }, { "text": "§ 114, but was later repealed in 1947, see 1947 Cal. Stat. ch. 1532.", "paragraph_id": "para_364" }, { "text": "CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC 13", "paragraph_id": "para_365" }, { "text": "Property, in a series of land transactions as well as by", "paragraph_id": "para_366" }, { "text": "dredging and filling portions of the San Diego Bay. The", "paragraph_id": "para_367" }, { "text": "precise mode and date of the federal government’s", "paragraph_id": "para_368" }, { "text": "acquisition of the Saipan property, however, is contested by", "paragraph_id": "para_369" }, { "text": "the parties.", "paragraph_id": "para_370" }, { "text": "The United States and Plaintiffs rely on a declaration by", "paragraph_id": "para_371" }, { "text": "Lonie Cyr, a senior land surveyor for the Navy, who attests", "paragraph_id": "para_372" }, { "text": "that the government did not acquire the lands where the", "paragraph_id": "para_373" }, { "text": "Saipan Property is located until 1955 through civil", "paragraph_id": "para_374" }, { "text": "condemnation. 5 According to Plaintiffs and the United", "paragraph_id": "para_375" }, { "text": "States, because the acquisition of land through civil", "paragraph_id": "para_376" }, { "text": "condemnation occurred after the 1940 Act, federal enclave", "paragraph_id": "para_377" }, { "text": "jurisdiction over the Saipan Property requires the federal", "paragraph_id": "para_378" }, { "text": "government’s assent to exclusive jurisdiction by “filing a", "paragraph_id": "para_379" }, { "text": "notice of . . . acceptance with the Governor of [the] State or", "paragraph_id": "para_380" }, { "text": "in such other manner as may be prescribed by the laws of the", "paragraph_id": "para_381" }, { "text": "State where [the] lands are situated.” 40 U.S.C. § 255", "paragraph_id": "para_382" }, { "text": "(1940). By this time, California had also enacted legislation", "paragraph_id": "para_383" }, { "text": "conditioning any transfer of jurisdiction on, inter alia, the", "paragraph_id": "para_384" }, { "text": "federal government’s written assent and the State Lands", "paragraph_id": "para_385" }, { "text": "Commission’s declaration that the transfer was “in the", "paragraph_id": "para_386" }, { "text": "interest of the State.” 1951 Cal. Stat. ch. 875, § 1. Because", "paragraph_id": "para_387" }, { "text": "Defendants have not offered any evidence that the federal", "paragraph_id": "para_388" }, { "text": "government assented to exclusive federal jurisdiction over", "paragraph_id": "para_389" }, { "text": "this property by filing notice or written consent, there can be", "paragraph_id": "para_390" }, { "text": "no federal enclave jurisdiction under this theory.", "paragraph_id": "para_391" }, { "text": "5 Defendants’ claim that this proffered fact was excluded by the district", "paragraph_id": "para_392" }, { "text": "court is incorrect. The district court expressly overruled Defendants’", "paragraph_id": "para_393" }, { "text": "objections concerning the factual contentions in the Cyr Declaration,", "paragraph_id": "para_394" }, { "text": "such as how the property came into the United States’ ownership. See", "paragraph_id": "para_395" }, { "text": "supra note 3.", "paragraph_id": "para_396" }, { "text": "14 CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC", "paragraph_id": "para_397" }, { "text": "Defendants respond that the 1940 Act (and its notice-", "paragraph_id": "para_398" }, { "text": "filing requirement) does not apply to the Saipan Property", "paragraph_id": "para_399" }, { "text": "because the relevant parcel was not “acquired” through civil", "paragraph_id": "para_400" }, { "text": "condemnation in 1955; it was instead “made” by the United", "paragraph_id": "para_401" }, { "text": "States by dredging and filling the San Diego Bay to create a", "paragraph_id": "para_402" }, { "text": "seaplane base between 1941 and 1943. According to", "paragraph_id": "para_403" }, { "text": "Defendants, the United States “has sole ownership over land", "paragraph_id": "para_404" }, { "text": "created in this manner,” and they rely on United States v.", "paragraph_id": "para_405" }, { "text": "F.E.B. Corp., 52 F.4th 916, 926‒29 (11th Cir. 2022) to", "paragraph_id": "para_406" }, { "text": "buttress their arguments.6 But, as the 1940 Act clarified, the", "paragraph_id": "para_407" }, { "text": "United States’ acquisition and ownership of land does not", "paragraph_id": "para_408" }, { "text": "require that the United States obtain exclusive jurisdiction", "paragraph_id": "para_409" }, { "text": "over that land. See 40 U.S.C. § 255 (1940); 40 U.S.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_410" }, { "text": "§ 3112(a). Therefore, Defendants’ claim of enclave", "paragraph_id": "para_411" }, { "text": "jurisdiction requires two predicates: (1) a factual predicate", "paragraph_id": "para_412" }, { "text": "that the Saipan Property originated from the United States’", "paragraph_id": "para_413" }, { "text": "own dredging and filling operation from 1941 to 1943 and", "paragraph_id": "para_414" }, { "text": "not the 1955 condemnation proceeding; and (2) a legal", "paragraph_id": "para_415" }, { "text": "predicate that land created by the United States for its own", "paragraph_id": "para_416" }, { "text": "use lies outside the scope of the 1940 Act because it was not", "paragraph_id": "para_417" }, { "text": "“acquired” and instead passed exclusively to the United", "paragraph_id": "para_418" }, { "text": "States based on California’s 1897 ceding statute. We need", "paragraph_id": "para_419" }, { "text": "not resolve the parties’ dispute over the factual predicate", "paragraph_id": "para_420" }, { "text": "because Defendants’ arguments fail to establish the legal", "paragraph_id": "para_421" }, { "text": "predicate.", "paragraph_id": "para_422" }, { "text": "The 1940 Act does not itself define the term “acquire.”", "paragraph_id": "para_423" }, { "text": "See generally, 40 U.S.C. § 255 (1940); see also 40 U.S.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_424" }, { "text": "6 That case involved a dispute about ownership of an island created by", "paragraph_id": "para_425" }, { "text": "the Navy via dredging activities near Key West, Florida. The question", "paragraph_id": "para_426" }, { "text": "presented was not about whether the United States held exclusive", "paragraph_id": "para_427" }, { "text": "jurisdiction over the island, but whether the United States had a claim of", "paragraph_id": "para_428" }, { "text": "ownership over the island pursuant to the Submerged Lands Act, 43", "paragraph_id": "para_429" }, { "text": "U.S.C. §§ 1301–1315.", "paragraph_id": "para_430" }, { "text": "CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC 15", "paragraph_id": "para_431" }, { "text": "§§ 3101‒3177. “Where Congress does not furnish a", "paragraph_id": "para_432" }, { "text": "definition of its own,” courts “generally seek to afford a", "paragraph_id": "para_433" }, { "text": "statutory term its ordinary or natural meaning.”", "paragraph_id": "para_434" }, { "text": "HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refin., LLC v. Renewable Fuels", "paragraph_id": "para_435" }, { "text": "Ass’n, 594 U.S. 382, 388 (2021) (quotation and citation", "paragraph_id": "para_436" }, { "text": "omitted). Under Black’s Law Dictionary, the term “acquire”", "paragraph_id": "para_437" }, { "text": "means “[t]o gain possession or control of” or “to get or", "paragraph_id": "para_438" }, { "text": "obtain” “by any means.” Acquire, Black’s Law Dictionary", "paragraph_id": "para_439" }, { "text": "(12th ed. 2024); see also Acquire, Black’s Law Dictionary", "paragraph_id": "para_440" }, { "text": "(3d ed. 1933) (“[t]o become the owner of property; to make", "paragraph_id": "para_441" }, { "text": "property one’s own” “[t]o gain permanently”). Under both", "paragraph_id": "para_442" }, { "text": "its contemporary and historical plain meanings, the term", "paragraph_id": "para_443" }, { "text": "“acquire” contemplates the United States’ acquisition of", "paragraph_id": "para_444" }, { "text": "land created by dredging and filling operations and therefore", "paragraph_id": "para_445" }, { "text": "the Saipan Property falls within the scope of the 1940 Act’s", "paragraph_id": "para_446" }, { "text": "requirements.", "paragraph_id": "para_447" }, { "text": "This plain meaning of the term “acquire” also accords", "paragraph_id": "para_448" }, { "text": "with the purpose of the 1940 Act. The Act followed several", "paragraph_id": "para_449" }, { "text": "Supreme Court decisions that addressed “controversies", "paragraph_id": "para_450" }, { "text": "concerning the relation of federal and state powers over", "paragraph_id": "para_451" }, { "text": "government property,” and, specifically, whether the federal", "paragraph_id": "para_452" }, { "text": "government’s acquisition of property resulted in exclusive", "paragraph_id": "para_453" }, { "text": "federal jurisdiction. Adams, 319 U.S. at 314 (collecting", "paragraph_id": "para_454" }, { "text": "cases). Before enactment, federal government officials", "paragraph_id": "para_455" }, { "text": "conducted a cooperative study which resulted in legislation", "paragraph_id": "para_456" }, { "text": "“aimed at giving broad discretion to the various agencies in", "paragraph_id": "para_457" }, { "text": "order that they might obtain only the necessary jurisdiction.”", "paragraph_id": "para_458" }, { "text": "Id. The 1940 Act achieved this goal by enshrining a", "paragraph_id": "para_459" }, { "text": "presumption against exclusive federal jurisdiction in the", "paragraph_id": "para_460" }, { "text": "absence of express federal assent. See 40 U.S.C. § 255", "paragraph_id": "para_461" }, { "text": "(1940).", "paragraph_id": "para_462" }, { "text": "Defendants rely on a definition of “acquire” from an", "paragraph_id": "para_463" }, { "text": "inapplicable statute relating to timber resources on federal", "paragraph_id": "para_464" }, { "text": "16 CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC", "paragraph_id": "para_465" }, { "text": "lands. See 16 U.S.C. § 620e (noting the definitions of § 620e", "paragraph_id": "para_466" }, { "text": "apply only “[f]or purposes of sections 620 to 620j of this title", "paragraph_id": "para_467" }, { "text": "[16 U.S.C. §§ 620‒620j]”). And the relevant chapter at", "paragraph_id": "para_468" }, { "text": "issue, Title 40, Subtitle II, Chapter 31, does not contain any", "paragraph_id": "para_469" }, { "text": "provision which would suggest that the term “acquire”", "paragraph_id": "para_470" }, { "text": "should be limited to lands obtained via transaction as", "paragraph_id": "para_471" }, { "text": "opposed to creation by the government itself. See generally,", "paragraph_id": "para_472" }, { "text": "40 U.S.C. §§ 3101‒3177.", "paragraph_id": "para_473" }, { "text": "Even if we were to credit Defendants’ contention that the", "paragraph_id": "para_474" }, { "text": "land was created by the United States and therefore the 1940", "paragraph_id": "para_475" }, { "text": "Act does not apply because there was no “acquisition,” the", "paragraph_id": "para_476" }, { "text": "California 1897 statute forecloses their argument. That", "paragraph_id": "para_477" }, { "text": "statute provided for the transfer of exclusive jurisdiction", "paragraph_id": "para_478" }, { "text": "only in lands “which may hereafter be ceded or conveyed to", "paragraph_id": "para_479" }, { "text": "said United States for” military purposes or defense. 1897", "paragraph_id": "para_480" }, { "text": "Cal. Stat. ch. 56, § 1. If, under Defendants’ theory, the land", "paragraph_id": "para_481" }, { "text": "was created by the United States through dredging and", "paragraph_id": "para_482" }, { "text": "filling, the land cannot have been ceded or conveyed by the", "paragraph_id": "para_483" }, { "text": "State of California to the United States.", "paragraph_id": "para_484" }, { "text": "Finally, Defendants presented a different theory for", "paragraph_id": "para_485" }, { "text": "exclusive jurisdiction before the district court that merits", "paragraph_id": "para_486" }, { "text": "brief discussion. Defendants posited below that the United", "paragraph_id": "para_487" }, { "text": "States retains exclusive jurisdiction over lands created by", "paragraph_id": "para_488" }, { "text": "dredging and filling operations under the Submerged Lands", "paragraph_id": "para_489" }, { "text": "Act. See 43 U.S.C. § 1313(a). This, too, is incorrect.", "paragraph_id": "para_490" }, { "text": "Although § 1313 carves out an exception to the Act’s general", "paragraph_id": "para_491" }, { "text": "transfer of federal title and claims to submerged lands within", "paragraph_id": "para_492" }, { "text": "the territorial boundaries of states, nothing in the text of", "paragraph_id": "para_493" }, { "text": "§ 1313 suggests that it extinguished state jurisdiction over", "paragraph_id": "para_494" }, { "text": "submerged lands within its territories. Id. Indeed, Congress’", "paragraph_id": "para_495" }, { "text": "purpose in passing the Submerged Lands Act was “not for", "paragraph_id": "para_496" }, { "text": "the Federal Government to retain exclusive jurisdiction over", "paragraph_id": "para_497" }, { "text": "navigation of the waters above the submerged lands, but for", "paragraph_id": "para_498" }, { "text": "CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC 17", "paragraph_id": "para_499" }, { "text": "the Federal Government to retain concurrent jurisdiction", "paragraph_id": "para_500" }, { "text": "over those waters.” Barber v. State of Hawai’i, 42 F.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_501" }, { "text": "1185, 1191 (9th Cir. 1994).", "paragraph_id": "para_502" }, { "text": "Accordingly, regardless of the parties’ competing", "paragraph_id": "para_503" }, { "text": "versions of events as to how the Saipan Property came into", "paragraph_id": "para_504" }, { "text": "the United States’ possession, Plaintiffs have failed to", "paragraph_id": "para_505" }, { "text": "provide any evidence that the federal government has", "paragraph_id": "para_506" }, { "text": "assented to exclusive jurisdiction over it so as to establish", "paragraph_id": "para_507" }, { "text": "federal enclave jurisdiction.", "paragraph_id": "para_508" }, { "text": "B.", "paragraph_id": "para_509" }, { "text": "The district court did not err in determining that it lacked", "paragraph_id": "para_510" }, { "text": "jurisdiction under the federal officer removal statute. Under", "paragraph_id": "para_511" }, { "text": "the federal officer removal statute, a defendant may remove", "paragraph_id": "para_512" }, { "text": "to federal court any", "paragraph_id": "para_513" }, { "text": "civil action or criminal prosecution that is", "paragraph_id": "para_514" }, { "text": "commenced in a State court and that is", "paragraph_id": "para_515" }, { "text": "against or directed to . . . [t]he United States", "paragraph_id": "para_516" }, { "text": "or any agency thereof or any officer (or any", "paragraph_id": "para_517" }, { "text": "person acting under that officer) of the United", "paragraph_id": "para_518" }, { "text": "States or of any agency thereof . . . for or", "paragraph_id": "para_519" }, { "text": "relating to any act under color of such office.", "paragraph_id": "para_520" }, { "text": "28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).", "paragraph_id": "para_521" }, { "text": "We first clarify our circuit’s interpretation of the federal", "paragraph_id": "para_522" }, { "text": "officer removal statute in light of the Supreme Court’s recent", "paragraph_id": "para_523" }, { "text": "decision in Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish,", "paragraph_id": "para_524" }, { "text": "Louisiana, 608 U.S. 1 (2026). Plaquemines illuminates an", "paragraph_id": "para_525" }, { "text": "error in our application of the federal officer removal statute.", "paragraph_id": "para_526" }, { "text": "We clarify the elements for federal officer removal and then", "paragraph_id": "para_527" }, { "text": "apply those elements to facts of this case.", "paragraph_id": "para_528" }, { "text": "18 CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC", "paragraph_id": "para_529" }, { "text": "(1)", "paragraph_id": "para_530" }, { "text": "We must first explain where our precedent went astray.", "paragraph_id": "para_531" }, { "text": "Before Plaquemines, our cases explained that removal under", "paragraph_id": "para_532" }, { "text": "28 U.S.C. § 1442 required a defendant to show (1) that they", "paragraph_id": "para_533" }, { "text": "are “person[s] within the meaning of the statute”; (2) that", "paragraph_id": "para_534" }, { "text": "“there is a causal nexus between [their] actions, taken", "paragraph_id": "para_535" }, { "text": "pursuant to a federal officer’s directions, and plaintiff’s", "paragraph_id": "para_536" }, { "text": "claims”; and (3) that they “can assert a colorable federal", "paragraph_id": "para_537" }, { "text": "defense.” Durham v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 445 F.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_538" }, { "text": "1247, 1251 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks", "paragraph_id": "para_539" }, { "text": "omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_540" }, { "text": "Within the causal nexus analysis, we required the", "paragraph_id": "para_541" }, { "text": "defendant to show “(1) that the person was ‘acting under’ a", "paragraph_id": "para_542" }, { "text": "federal officer in performing some ‘act under color of federal", "paragraph_id": "para_543" }, { "text": "office,’ and (2) that such action is causally connected with", "paragraph_id": "para_544" }, { "text": "the plaintiff's claims against it.” County of San Mateo v.", "paragraph_id": "para_545" }, { "text": "Chevron Corp., 32 F.4th 733, 755 (9th Cir. 2022). The", "paragraph_id": "para_546" }, { "text": "“acting under” element entailed a “relationship between", "paragraph_id": "para_547" }, { "text": "someone acting under a federal officer and the federal", "paragraph_id": "para_548" }, { "text": "officer” that “typically involves ‘subjection, guidance, or", "paragraph_id": "para_549" }, { "text": "control.’” Stirling v. Minasian, 955 F.3d 795, 800 (9th Cir.", "paragraph_id": "para_550" }, { "text": "2020) (quoting Fidelitad, Inc. v. Insitu, Inc., 904 F.3d 1095,", "paragraph_id": "para_551" }, { "text": "1099 (9th Cir. 2018)). And the “causal connection” element", "paragraph_id": "para_552" }, { "text": "required demonstration that the defendant’s actions were", "paragraph_id": "para_553" }, { "text": "“connected or associated, with acts under color of federal", "paragraph_id": "para_554" }, { "text": "office.” DeFiore v. SOC LLC, 85 F.4th 546, 557 n.6 (9th Cir.", "paragraph_id": "para_555" }, { "text": "2023) (quoting Latiolais v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., 951", "paragraph_id": "para_556" }, { "text": "F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc)). Despite the", "paragraph_id": "para_557" }, { "text": "“causal” label we employed, our precedent noted that the", "paragraph_id": "para_558" }, { "text": "“causal connection” element did not require a strict causal", "paragraph_id": "para_559" }, { "text": "connection. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_560" }, { "text": "CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC 19", "paragraph_id": "para_561" }, { "text": "Plaquemines involved an environmental suit brought by", "paragraph_id": "para_562" }, { "text": "coastal parishes in the State of Louisiana against Chevron", "paragraph_id": "para_563" }, { "text": "for the company’s production of crude oil in Louisiana’s", "paragraph_id": "para_564" }, { "text": "coastal zone during World War II. In Plaquemines, the", "paragraph_id": "para_565" }, { "text": "Supreme Court articulated the three requirements for federal", "paragraph_id": "para_566" }, { "text": "officer removal differently than this court:", "paragraph_id": "para_567" }, { "text": "First, the removing defendant must be the", "paragraph_id": "para_568" }, { "text": "United States, a federal agency, a federal", "paragraph_id": "para_569" }, { "text": "officer, or a person ‘acting under’ a federal", "paragraph_id": "para_570" }, { "text": "officer, such as certain private parties hired to", "paragraph_id": "para_571" }, { "text": "assist federal officers. Second, the suit must", "paragraph_id": "para_572" }, { "text": "be ‘for or relating to any act under color of", "paragraph_id": "para_573" }, { "text": "such office.’ Third, the removing defendant", "paragraph_id": "para_574" }, { "text": "must assert ‘a colorable federal defense.’", "paragraph_id": "para_575" }, { "text": "Plaquemines, 608 U.S. at 6 (citations omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_576" }, { "text": "The Supreme Court primarily analyzed the “relating to”", "paragraph_id": "para_577" }, { "text": "requirement of the officer removal statute. The Court", "paragraph_id": "para_578" }, { "text": "explained that the “phrase ‘relating to’ sweeps broadly” and", "paragraph_id": "para_579" }, { "text": "is ordinarily understood to mean “to stand in some relation;", "paragraph_id": "para_580" }, { "text": "to have bearing or concern; to pertain; refer; to bring into", "paragraph_id": "para_581" }, { "text": "association with or connection with.” Id. at 11 (quoting", "paragraph_id": "para_582" }, { "text": "Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 383", "paragraph_id": "para_583" }, { "text": "(1992) (quoting BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1158 (5th ed.", "paragraph_id": "para_584" }, { "text": "1979)). A defendant must show “a connection that is not", "paragraph_id": "para_585" }, { "text": "‘tenuous, remote, or peripheral’” but need not “show that his", "paragraph_id": "para_586" }, { "text": "federal duties specifically required or strictly caused the", "paragraph_id": "para_587" }, { "text": "challenged conduct” to satisfy the “relating to” requirement.", "paragraph_id": "para_588" }, { "text": "Id. at 11-12 (citation omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_589" }, { "text": "Applying this requirement, the Supreme Court held that", "paragraph_id": "para_590" }, { "text": "Chevron’s crude oil production “related to” its performance", "paragraph_id": "para_591" }, { "text": "of its contractual duties to refine aviation gas (“avgas”) for", "paragraph_id": "para_592" }, { "text": "20 CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC", "paragraph_id": "para_593" }, { "text": "the military’s war efforts in World War II. Id. at 13-14.", "paragraph_id": "para_594" }, { "text": "Plaquemines explained that “Chevron’s contract [with the", "paragraph_id": "para_595" }, { "text": "Government] did not have to expressly direct or invite", "paragraph_id": "para_596" }, { "text": "Chevron’s crude-oil production for that conduct to “‘relate", "paragraph_id": "para_597" }, { "text": "to’ its avgas refining.” Id. at 14. It was enough that", "paragraph_id": "para_598" }, { "text": "Chevron’s crude oil production methods—which Plaintiffs", "paragraph_id": "para_599" }, { "text": "challenged as environmentally unsound—enabled the", "paragraph_id": "para_600" }, { "text": "company to “maximize production of crude oil” to service", "paragraph_id": "para_601" }, { "text": "its avgas refining contracts with the Government, and that", "paragraph_id": "para_602" }, { "text": "the Government had incentivized Chevron to maximize", "paragraph_id": "para_603" }, { "text": "crude oil production during the wartime in various ways.", "paragraph_id": "para_604" }, { "text": "See id. at 13 (citation modified). Chevron therefore", "paragraph_id": "para_605" }, { "text": "“plausibly alleged a close relationship between its", "paragraph_id": "para_606" }, { "text": "challenged conduct and the performance of its federal", "paragraph_id": "para_607" }, { "text": "duties” for purposes of federal officer removal. Id. at 12.", "paragraph_id": "para_608" }, { "text": "Plaquemines also clarified the relationship between the", "paragraph_id": "para_609" }, { "text": "“acting under” and “relating to” requirements under the", "paragraph_id": "para_610" }, { "text": "federal officer removal statute. The Court rejected", "paragraph_id": "para_611" }, { "text": "Louisiana’s alternative theory that “the removal statute", "paragraph_id": "para_612" }, { "text": "requires that the defendant was ‘acting under’ a federal", "paragraph_id": "para_613" }, { "text": "officer in taking the specific actions challenged in the suit.”", "paragraph_id": "para_614" }, { "text": "Id. at 15. Louisiana accepted that “Chevron acted under a", "paragraph_id": "para_615" }, { "text": "federal officer while engaged in avgas refining” but asserted", "paragraph_id": "para_616" }, { "text": "that “the suit is not against a defendant ‘acting under’ an", "paragraph_id": "para_617" }, { "text": "officer” because “Chevron did not produce crude oil", "paragraph_id": "para_618" }, { "text": "pursuant to a federal contract.” Id. The Court explained that", "paragraph_id": "para_619" }, { "text": "this argument “impermissibly conflates” the “acting under”", "paragraph_id": "para_620" }, { "text": "and “relating to” requirements of the officer removal statute", "paragraph_id": "para_621" }, { "text": "because it leaves “the ‘relating to’ requirement with little, if", "paragraph_id": "para_622" }, { "text": "any, independent function.” Id. (citation omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_623" }, { "text": "The Court observed that the federal officer removal", "paragraph_id": "para_624" }, { "text": "statute “permits the removal of state-court suits against ‘any", "paragraph_id": "para_625" }, { "text": "officer (or any person acting under that officer)’ that are ‘for", "paragraph_id": "para_626" }, { "text": "CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC 21", "paragraph_id": "para_627" }, { "text": "or relating to any act under color of such office.’” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_628" }, { "text": "(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1)). The removal statute thus", "paragraph_id": "para_629" }, { "text": "“contemplates removal of suits against officers or their", "paragraph_id": "para_630" }, { "text": "agents for acts that were not done under color of their offices,", "paragraph_id": "para_631" }, { "text": "so long as the suits ‘relat[e] to’ such acts.” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_632" }, { "text": "Plaquemines viewed the “acting under” and “relating to”", "paragraph_id": "para_633" }, { "text": "elements of § 1442(a)(1) as involving analytically distinct", "paragraph_id": "para_634" }, { "text": "inquiries: (1) was the defendant “acting under” the color of", "paragraph_id": "para_635" }, { "text": "office—i.e, under the direction, guidance, or control of an", "paragraph_id": "para_636" }, { "text": "officer (such as aviation gas refinement in Plaquemines),", "paragraph_id": "para_637" }, { "text": "and (2) are the defendant’s acts challenged by plaintiffs", "paragraph_id": "para_638" }, { "text": "(such as the production of crude oil) “related to” acts", "paragraph_id": "para_639" }, { "text": "performed under the color of office.", "paragraph_id": "para_640" }, { "text": "Plaquemines illuminates that our federal officer removal", "paragraph_id": "para_641" }, { "text": "doctrine has gone astray in certain respects. In our", "paragraph_id": "para_642" }, { "text": "application of a causal nexus test, we conflated the", "paragraph_id": "para_643" }, { "text": "requirements of the “acting under” element––to show", "paragraph_id": "para_644" }, { "text": "federal subjection, guidance, or control––with the subject of", "paragraph_id": "para_645" }, { "text": "the “related to” element––the challenged acts. We", "paragraph_id": "para_646" }, { "text": "previously framed “the ‘central issue’ in the causal nexus", "paragraph_id": "para_647" }, { "text": "analysis” as “whether a federal officer directed the defendant", "paragraph_id": "para_648" }, { "text": "to take the action challenged.” Lake, 14 F.4th at 1005", "paragraph_id": "para_649" }, { "text": "(emphasis added) (citing Riggs v. Airbus Helicopters, Inc.,", "paragraph_id": "para_650" }, { "text": "939 F.3d 981, 987 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing Fidelitad, Inc., 904", "paragraph_id": "para_651" }, { "text": "F.3d at 1099)); see, e.g., Cabalce v. Thomas E. Blanchard &", "paragraph_id": "para_652" }, { "text": "Assocs., Inc., 797 F.3d 720, 728 (9th Cir. 2015) (requiring", "paragraph_id": "para_653" }, { "text": "the defendant to show “federal control . . . over the handling", "paragraph_id": "para_654" }, { "text": "of the seized fireworks,” which was the subject of the suit).", "paragraph_id": "para_655" }, { "text": "Under Plaquemines, however, § 1442(a)(1) removal", "paragraph_id": "para_656" }, { "text": "does not require that a federal officer direct the defendant to", "paragraph_id": "para_657" }, { "text": "take the specific action challenged. To satisfy the “acting", "paragraph_id": "para_658" }, { "text": "under” requirement of the removal statute, a defendant is not", "paragraph_id": "para_659" }, { "text": "22 CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC", "paragraph_id": "para_660" }, { "text": "required to show that they acted under a federal officer “in", "paragraph_id": "para_661" }, { "text": "taking the specific actions challenged in the suit.”", "paragraph_id": "para_662" }, { "text": "Plaquemines, 608 U.S. at 15. And to satisfy the “relating to”", "paragraph_id": "para_663" }, { "text": "requirement, a defendant need not show that a federal officer", "paragraph_id": "para_664" }, { "text": "“expressly direct[ed] or invite[d]” the challenged action. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_665" }, { "text": "at 14; see also id. at 21 (Jackson, J., concurring) (agreeing", "paragraph_id": "para_666" }, { "text": "that the Fifth Circuit erred because it “faulted Chevron for", "paragraph_id": "para_667" }, { "text": "failing to identify a specific contractual directive ‘pertaining", "paragraph_id": "para_668" }, { "text": "to oil production.’”). Our causal nexus standard thus", "paragraph_id": "para_669" }, { "text": "improperly merged the “acting under” and “related to”", "paragraph_id": "para_670" }, { "text": "elements and imposed a more onerous requirement for", "paragraph_id": "para_671" }, { "text": "defendants by demanding a causal relationship between the", "paragraph_id": "para_672" }, { "text": "two.", "paragraph_id": "para_673" }, { "text": "Indeed, our prior opinion in this case illustrates this error.", "paragraph_id": "para_674" }, { "text": "In our prior opinion, we required Defendants to show", "paragraph_id": "para_675" }, { "text": "“federal control or direction over the relevant actions at issue", "paragraph_id": "para_676" }, { "text": "here—mold testing and remediation” to satisfy the “acting", "paragraph_id": "para_677" }, { "text": "under” element of the causal nexus test. Childs v. San Diego", "paragraph_id": "para_678" }, { "text": "Fam. Hous., LLC, 150 F.4th 1151, 1161 (9th Cir. 2025),", "paragraph_id": "para_679" }, { "text": "vacated sub nom. San Diego Fam. Hous. v. Childs, No. 25-", "paragraph_id": "para_680" }, { "text": "1027, 2026 WL 1855130 (U.S. June 29, 2026). We", "paragraph_id": "para_681" }, { "text": "concluded that the federal officer removal statute did not", "paragraph_id": "para_682" }, { "text": "permit Defendants to remove this case to federal court based", "paragraph_id": "para_683" }, { "text": "upon Defendants’ failure to show that they “acted pursuant", "paragraph_id": "para_684" }, { "text": "to the Navy’s instructions with regard to mold inspection and", "paragraph_id": "para_685" }, { "text": "remediation” on Plaintiffs’ properties. Id. at 1162.", "paragraph_id": "para_686" }, { "text": "Accordingly, we clarify the requirements for removal", "paragraph_id": "para_687" }, { "text": "under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) in accordance with", "paragraph_id": "para_688" }, { "text": "Plaquemines. To satisfy the requirements for federal officer", "paragraph_id": "para_689" }, { "text": "removal, (1) “the removing defendant must be the United", "paragraph_id": "para_690" }, { "text": "States, a federal agency, a federal officer, or a person ‘acting", "paragraph_id": "para_691" }, { "text": "under’ a federal officer, such as certain private parties hired", "paragraph_id": "para_692" }, { "text": "to assist federal officers,” (2) the suit must be “for or relating", "paragraph_id": "para_693" }, { "text": "CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC 23", "paragraph_id": "para_694" }, { "text": "to any act under color of such office,” and (3) “the removing", "paragraph_id": "para_695" }, { "text": "defendant must assert a colorable federal defense.”", "paragraph_id": "para_696" }, { "text": "Plaquemines, 608 U.S. at 6 (internal quotation marks", "paragraph_id": "para_697" }, { "text": "omitted). This articulation incorporates our requirement that", "paragraph_id": "para_698" }, { "text": "defendants show that they are persons “within the meaning", "paragraph_id": "para_699" }, { "text": "of the statute.” Durham, 445 F.3d at 1251. As Plaquemines", "paragraph_id": "para_700" }, { "text": "makes clear, a causal nexus analysis is inconsistent with the", "paragraph_id": "para_701" }, { "text": "requirements for federal officer removal, and a removing", "paragraph_id": "para_702" }, { "text": "defendant need not show that his federal duties specifically", "paragraph_id": "para_703" }, { "text": "required or strictly caused the challenged conduct. 7", "paragraph_id": "para_704" }, { "text": "Plaquemines, 608 U.S. at 11.", "paragraph_id": "para_705" }, { "text": "(2)", "paragraph_id": "para_706" }, { "text": "We now turn to the facts of this case. Defendants have", "paragraph_id": "para_707" }, { "text": "not satisfied the federal officer removal statute because they", "paragraph_id": "para_708" }, { "text": "have not shown that they were “acting under” a federal", "paragraph_id": "para_709" }, { "text": "officer in managing the Saipan property. 28 U.S.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_710" }, { "text": "§ 1442(a)(1). We disagree with Defendants’ contention that", "paragraph_id": "para_711" }, { "text": "they acted under a federal officer merely because they", "paragraph_id": "para_712" }, { "text": "“operate the Navy’s military housing under Navy contracts,", "paragraph_id": "para_713" }, { "text": "oversight, guidance and direction, a task the Navy would", "paragraph_id": "para_714" }, { "text": "otherwise have to do by itself.” Because we conclude that", "paragraph_id": "para_715" }, { "text": "Defendants fail to satisfy the “acting under” requirement of", "paragraph_id": "para_716" }, { "text": "7 Our causal nexus requirement has also been a source of confusion", "paragraph_id": "para_717" }, { "text": "because we have not required a strict causal connection. See DeFiore,", "paragraph_id": "para_718" }, { "text": "85 F.4th at 557 n.6; see also Petition for Writ of Certiorari at 26, Chevron", "paragraph_id": "para_719" }, { "text": "USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Par., La., 608 U.S. 1 (2026) (No. 24-813)", "paragraph_id": "para_720" }, { "text": "(observing that the Ninth Circuit’s use of the phrase “causal nexus”", "paragraph_id": "para_721" }, { "text": "stokes “confusion” because we have “watered down” our causation", "paragraph_id": "para_722" }, { "text": "requirement).", "paragraph_id": "para_723" }, { "text": "24 CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC", "paragraph_id": "para_724" }, { "text": "the federal officer removal statute, we do not analyze the", "paragraph_id": "para_725" }, { "text": "“relating to” or “colorable federal defense” requirements.8", "paragraph_id": "para_726" }, { "text": "To satisfy the “acting under” requirement, defendants", "paragraph_id": "para_727" }, { "text": "must be “involve[d in] an effort to assist, or to help carry", "paragraph_id": "para_728" }, { "text": "out, the duties or tasks of the federal superior.” Watson v.", "paragraph_id": "para_729" }, { "text": "Philip Morris Cos., 551 U.S. 142, 152 (2007). This", "paragraph_id": "para_730" }, { "text": "relationship involves “subjection, guidance, or control.” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_731" }, { "text": "(quoting WEBSTER’S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY", "paragraph_id": "para_732" }, { "text": "2765 (2d ed. 1953)). The Supreme Court has warned,", "paragraph_id": "para_733" }, { "text": "however, that “the help or assistance necessary to bring a", "paragraph_id": "para_734" }, { "text": "private person within the scope of the statute does not", "paragraph_id": "para_735" }, { "text": "include simply complying with the law.” Id. Thus, it is not", "paragraph_id": "para_736" }, { "text": "enough that a federal officer’s “regulation is highly detailed”", "paragraph_id": "para_737" }, { "text": "or that a defendant’s activities “are highly supervised and", "paragraph_id": "para_738" }, { "text": "monitored.” Id. at 153.", "paragraph_id": "para_739" }, { "text": "We have distilled Watson’s language into a set of four", "paragraph_id": "para_740" }, { "text": "considerations. We consider (1) “whether the person is", "paragraph_id": "para_741" }, { "text": "acting on behalf of the officer in a manner akin to an agency", "paragraph_id": "para_742" }, { "text": "relationship,” (2) “whether the person is subject to the", "paragraph_id": "para_743" }, { "text": "officer’s close direction, such as acting under the", "paragraph_id": "para_744" }, { "text": "‘subjection, guidance, or control’ of the officer,” 9", "paragraph_id": "para_745" }, { "text": "8 All parties accept that Defendants are “persons” for purposes of", "paragraph_id": "para_746" }, { "text": "§ 1442(a).", "paragraph_id": "para_747" }, { "text": "9 We exclude County of San Mateo’s addition of the phrase “or in a", "paragraph_id": "para_748" }, { "text": "relationship which ‘is an unusually close one involving detailed", "paragraph_id": "para_749" }, { "text": "regulation, monitoring, or supervision.” 32 F.4th at 756 (quoting", "paragraph_id": "para_750" }, { "text": "Watson, 551 U.S. at 154). Watson did not hold that “detailed regulation,", "paragraph_id": "para_751" }, { "text": "monitoring, or supervision” gives rise to an “acting under” relationship.", "paragraph_id": "para_752" }, { "text": "Rather, the Court observed that some lower courts have held that", "paragraph_id": "para_753" }, { "text": "“Government contractors fall within the terms of the federal officer", "paragraph_id": "para_754" }, { "text": "removal statute, at least when the relationship between the contractor and", "paragraph_id": "para_755" }, { "text": "the Government is an unusually close one involving detailed regulation,", "paragraph_id": "para_756" }, { "text": "monitoring, or supervision” and declined to “further examine here (a", "paragraph_id": "para_757" }, { "text": "CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC 25", "paragraph_id": "para_758" }, { "text": "(3) “whether the private person is assisting the federal", "paragraph_id": "para_759" }, { "text": "officer in fulfilling ‘basic governmental tasks’ that ‘the", "paragraph_id": "para_760" }, { "text": "Government itself would have had to perform’ if it had not", "paragraph_id": "para_761" }, { "text": "contracted with a private firm,” and finally, (4) “whether the", "paragraph_id": "para_762" }, { "text": "private person’s activity is so closely related to the", "paragraph_id": "para_763" }, { "text": "government’s implementation of its federal duties that the", "paragraph_id": "para_764" }, { "text": "private person faces ‘a significant risk of state-court", "paragraph_id": "para_765" }, { "text": "prejudice’” in light of the purpose of the federal officer", "paragraph_id": "para_766" }, { "text": "removal statute. County of San Mateo, 32 F.4th at 756–57", "paragraph_id": "para_767" }, { "text": "(quoting Watson, 551 U.S. at 151–54).", "paragraph_id": "para_768" }, { "text": "The relative weights of these four considerations will", "paragraph_id": "para_769" }, { "text": "vary depending on the circumstances of each case. Here, we", "paragraph_id": "para_770" }, { "text": "conduct an analysis of these considerations tailored to the", "paragraph_id": "para_771" }, { "text": "facts of this specific case. Weighing these four", "paragraph_id": "para_772" }, { "text": "considerations, we conclude that Defendants have not shown", "paragraph_id": "para_773" }, { "text": "that they acted under a federal officer.", "paragraph_id": "para_774" }, { "text": "Because this factor so clearly cuts against removal, we", "paragraph_id": "para_775" }, { "text": "begin with the state-court prejudice consideration.", "paragraph_id": "para_776" }, { "text": "Defendants have not shown that their activity of managing", "paragraph_id": "para_777" }, { "text": "rental housing is “so closely related to the government’s", "paragraph_id": "para_778" }, { "text": "implementation of its federal duties” that they face a", "paragraph_id": "para_779" }, { "text": "“significant risk of state-court prejudice.” County of San", "paragraph_id": "para_780" }, { "text": "Mateo, 32 F.4th at 757 (internal quotation marks omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_781" }, { "text": "Rather, as the U.S. Amici put it, this case is, at its core, a", "paragraph_id": "para_782" }, { "text": "“landlord-tenant dispute.” Brief for the U.S. as Amicus", "paragraph_id": "para_783" }, { "text": "Curiae in Support of Appellees, Childs v. San Diego Family", "paragraph_id": "para_784" }, { "text": "Housing, LLC, No. 24-1256, Dkt. No. 30. Defendants point", "paragraph_id": "para_785" }, { "text": "to no risk—nor do we discern any—that there is any “‘local", "paragraph_id": "para_786" }, { "text": "prejudice’ against unpopular federal laws or federal", "paragraph_id": "para_787" }, { "text": "case where private contracting is not at issue) whether and when", "paragraph_id": "para_788" }, { "text": "particular circumstances may enable private contractors to invoke the", "paragraph_id": "para_789" }, { "text": "statute.” Watson, 551 U.S. at 154.", "paragraph_id": "para_790" }, { "text": "26 CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC", "paragraph_id": "para_791" }, { "text": "officials,” County of San Mateo, 32 F.4th at 756 (quoting", "paragraph_id": "para_792" }, { "text": "Watson, 551 U.S. at 150), in the carrying out of these", "paragraph_id": "para_793" }, { "text": "landlord responsibilities. Nor are matters of national", "paragraph_id": "para_794" }, { "text": "importance at stake, and there is no direct conflict between", "paragraph_id": "para_795" }, { "text": "state and federal governments. Cf. Goncalves By & Through", "paragraph_id": "para_796" }, { "text": "Goncalves v. Rady Child.’s. Hosp. San Diego, 865 F.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_797" }, { "text": "1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 2017) (noting the “strong ‘and distinctly", "paragraph_id": "para_798" }, { "text": "federal interests’” at play there (citation omitted)). This case", "paragraph_id": "para_799" }, { "text": "thus does not implicate Congress’s desire to “protect the", "paragraph_id": "para_800" }, { "text": "Federal Government from state-court ‘interference with its", "paragraph_id": "para_801" }, { "text": "operations.’” Plaquemines, 608 U.S. at 5 (quoting Watson,", "paragraph_id": "para_802" }, { "text": "551 U.S. at 150).", "paragraph_id": "para_803" }, { "text": "Turning to the remaining prongs of the Watson analysis,", "paragraph_id": "para_804" }, { "text": "we also conclude that they do not support an “acting under”", "paragraph_id": "para_805" }, { "text": "relationship. First, Defendants operated independently of", "paragraph_id": "para_806" }, { "text": "the Navy rather than on the Navy’s behalf “in a manner akin", "paragraph_id": "para_807" }, { "text": "to an agency relationship.” County of San Mateo, 32 F.4th", "paragraph_id": "para_808" }, { "text": "at 756; see also Goncalves, 865 F.3d at 1246–47 (holding", "paragraph_id": "para_809" }, { "text": "that a defendant acted under federal officer when it served", "paragraph_id": "para_810" }, { "text": "“as the government’s agent”). Pursuant to the MPHI, the", "paragraph_id": "para_811" }, { "text": "Government contracted with Defendants to manage the", "paragraph_id": "para_812" }, { "text": "Saipan Property. Although direct oversight over the", "paragraph_id": "para_813" }, { "text": "construction and renovation of housing was required by the", "paragraph_id": "para_814" }, { "text": "MPHI, day-to-day management of the property was left to", "paragraph_id": "para_815" }, { "text": "Defendants. See 10 U.S.C. § 2885. The Operating", "paragraph_id": "para_816" }, { "text": "Agreement between the Government and Defendants states", "paragraph_id": "para_817" }, { "text": "that Lincoln enjoyed “exclusive management and control of", "paragraph_id": "para_818" }, { "text": "the business of [SDFH]” as well as “full authority to take all", "paragraph_id": "para_819" }, { "text": "actions necessary or appropriate to pursue the business and", "paragraph_id": "para_820" }, { "text": "carry out the purpose of the Company.” The Government’s", "paragraph_id": "para_821" }, { "text": "hands-off approach to day-to-day operations ultimately", "paragraph_id": "para_822" }, { "text": "counsels against a finding that Defendants acted as the", "paragraph_id": "para_823" }, { "text": "Government’s agent in its management of the property. Cf.", "paragraph_id": "para_824" }, { "text": "CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC 27", "paragraph_id": "para_825" }, { "text": "Goncalves, 865 F.3d at 1246 (finding defendant to be acting", "paragraph_id": "para_826" }, { "text": "as the Government’s agent where Office of Personnel", "paragraph_id": "para_827" }, { "text": "Management (“OPM”) was “responsible for the overall", "paragraph_id": "para_828" }, { "text": "administration of the program while sharing the day-to-day", "paragraph_id": "para_829" }, { "text": "operating responsibility with the [contractors]” (emphasis", "paragraph_id": "para_830" }, { "text": "added)).", "paragraph_id": "para_831" }, { "text": "Second, although Defendants present evidence of federal", "paragraph_id": "para_832" }, { "text": "oversight, that oversight does not cross the line into", "paragraph_id": "para_833" }, { "text": "subjection, guidance, or control. The Navy approves matters", "paragraph_id": "para_834" }, { "text": "like cash flow, contracts, and capitalization, can direct", "paragraph_id": "para_835" }, { "text": "Defendants to replace the property manager under certain", "paragraph_id": "para_836" }, { "text": "conditions, reviews Defendants’ budget and work orders,", "paragraph_id": "para_837" }, { "text": "meets with Defendants to discuss various properties, collects", "paragraph_id": "para_838" }, { "text": "reports from Defendants, and sends “letter directives” that", "paragraph_id": "para_839" }, { "text": "inform Defendants about the hazards of mold, testing", "paragraph_id": "para_840" }, { "text": "efficacy, and expert body recommendations, and counsel", "paragraph_id": "para_841" }, { "text": "compliance with statutory requirements under 10 U.S.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_842" }, { "text": "§ 2891a.10", "paragraph_id": "para_843" }, { "text": "At the same time, Defendants do not identify any", "paragraph_id": "para_844" }, { "text": "relevant directive or mandate in the Navy’s letters during the", "paragraph_id": "para_845" }, { "text": "period in question, much less any directive that federal law", "paragraph_id": "para_846" }, { "text": "does not already require.11 See Watson, 551 U.S. at 153", "paragraph_id": "para_847" }, { "text": "10 Defendants also invoke their ground lease, which preserves federal", "paragraph_id": "para_848" }, { "text": "responsibility for pre-existing conditions in military housing and reverts", "paragraph_id": "para_849" }, { "text": "the land and housing to the Government at the end of the lease. Yet we", "paragraph_id": "para_850" }, { "text": "have explained that “the federal government’s willingness to lease", "paragraph_id": "para_851" }, { "text": "federal property . . . to a private entity for that entity’s commercial", "paragraph_id": "para_852" }, { "text": "purposes does not, without more, constitute the kind of assistance", "paragraph_id": "para_853" }, { "text": "required to establish that the private entity is ‘acting under’ a federal", "paragraph_id": "para_854" }, { "text": "officer.” County of San Mateo, 32 F.4th at 760.", "paragraph_id": "para_855" }, { "text": "11 Defendants identify one letter directive that provides minimum", "paragraph_id": "para_856" }, { "text": "standards for tenant displacement, but this letter postdates the date that", "paragraph_id": "para_857" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs commenced this litigation.", "paragraph_id": "para_858" }, { "text": "28 CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC", "paragraph_id": "para_859" }, { "text": "(stating that “compliance” with “federal laws, rules, and", "paragraph_id": "para_860" }, { "text": "regulations” does not by itself create an acting under", "paragraph_id": "para_861" }, { "text": "relationship). And as we have explained, the “Navy’s", "paragraph_id": "para_862" }, { "text": "consent power over aspects of the housing arrangement”", "paragraph_id": "para_863" }, { "text": "merely illustrates “‘simple compliance . . . that does not meet", "paragraph_id": "para_864" }, { "text": "the acting under standard.’” Lake, 14 F.4th at 1005 (quoting", "paragraph_id": "para_865" }, { "text": "Riggs, 939 F.3d at 989). 12 Thus, although this factor is", "paragraph_id": "para_866" }, { "text": "perhaps not as clear cut as the others, we conclude that", "paragraph_id": "para_867" }, { "text": "Defendants’ evidence of federal oversight does not rise to", "paragraph_id": "para_868" }, { "text": "the level of subjection, guidance, or control. See Watson,", "paragraph_id": "para_869" }, { "text": "551 U.S. at 151; cf. Goncalves, 865 F.3d at 1246 (holding", "paragraph_id": "para_870" }, { "text": "that a third-party administrator of a federal health plan acted", "paragraph_id": "para_871" }, { "text": "under a federal officer when the OPM exercised “direct and", "paragraph_id": "para_872" }, { "text": "extensive control” over benefits contracts).", "paragraph_id": "para_873" }, { "text": "Defendants assert that their strongest evidence that", "paragraph_id": "para_874" }, { "text": "demonstrates they were “acting under” a federal officer is a", "paragraph_id": "para_875" }, { "text": "lease provision that ordered them to create a mold", "paragraph_id": "para_876" }, { "text": "management plan. The lease provision states: “Lessee shall", "paragraph_id": "para_877" }, { "text": "comply with the Lessee created ‘Mold Management Plan’", "paragraph_id": "para_878" }, { "text": "which shall be delivered to the Government for review and", "paragraph_id": "para_879" }, { "text": "approval.” The mold management plan, in turn, created a", "paragraph_id": "para_880" }, { "text": "policy to remediate and test mold. Defendants assert that", "paragraph_id": "para_881" }, { "text": "they developed the mold management plan “in consultation”", "paragraph_id": "para_882" }, { "text": "with the Navy and “based in part on U.S. Navy documents", "paragraph_id": "para_883" }, { "text": "and policies,” and that the Navy “periodically audits” their", "paragraph_id": "para_884" }, { "text": "compliance “through work order review.”", "paragraph_id": "para_885" }, { "text": "12 Although Lake’s causal nexus discussion is irreconcilable with", "paragraph_id": "para_886" }, { "text": "Plaquemines, compare Lake, 14 F.4th at 1005, with Plaquemines, 608", "paragraph_id": "para_887" }, { "text": "U.S. at 11, 14, Lake’s analysis of the “acting under” requirement remains", "paragraph_id": "para_888" }, { "text": "relevant as to the nature of the “subjection, guidance, and control” factor", "paragraph_id": "para_889" }, { "text": "more broadly. See Lake, 14 F.4th at 1005.", "paragraph_id": "para_890" }, { "text": "CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC 29", "paragraph_id": "para_891" }, { "text": "Defendants did not act under a federal officer within the", "paragraph_id": "para_892" }, { "text": "meaning of the officer removal statute when they created and", "paragraph_id": "para_893" }, { "text": "complied with the mold management plan. The lease", "paragraph_id": "para_894" }, { "text": "provision certainly contains a directive––to create and", "paragraph_id": "para_895" }, { "text": "follow a plan––but that directive leaves Defendants", "paragraph_id": "para_896" }, { "text": "significant discretion to devise and implement their own", "paragraph_id": "para_897" }, { "text": "plan. The lease provision specifies no requirements for that", "paragraph_id": "para_898" }, { "text": "mold management plan. Cf. Leite, 749 F.3d at 1120", "paragraph_id": "para_899" }, { "text": "(defendants acted under a federal officer when the Navy", "paragraph_id": "para_900" }, { "text": "provided “detailed specifications regulating the warning that", "paragraph_id": "para_901" }, { "text": "equipment manufacturers were required to provide”). And", "paragraph_id": "para_902" }, { "text": "the Navy’s power to withhold consent over the mold", "paragraph_id": "para_903" }, { "text": "management plan does not show that the Navy controlled", "paragraph_id": "para_904" }, { "text": "that plan’s specific contents. See Lake, 14 F.4th at 1005.", "paragraph_id": "para_905" }, { "text": "Defendants also do not suggest that the contents of the", "paragraph_id": "para_906" }, { "text": "mold management plan deviated from basic procedures that", "paragraph_id": "para_907" }, { "text": "Defendants would otherwise follow in any ordinary lease.", "paragraph_id": "para_908" }, { "text": "Indeed, the mold management plan states that it seeks to", "paragraph_id": "para_909" }, { "text": "ensure “compliance with applicable laws, regulations,", "paragraph_id": "para_910" }, { "text": "project-related requirements and [Lincoln Military Housing]", "paragraph_id": "para_911" }, { "text": "policies,” and we have held that a lease provision that", "paragraph_id": "para_912" }, { "text": "“largely track[s] statutory requirements” counsels “[m]ere", "paragraph_id": "para_913" }, { "text": "‘compliance with the law’” rather than demonstrates a", "paragraph_id": "para_914" }, { "text": "federal officer’s control over the contractor’s acts. County", "paragraph_id": "para_915" }, { "text": "of San Mateo, 32 F.4th at 760 (citation modified) (quoting", "paragraph_id": "para_916" }, { "text": "Goncalves, 865 F.3d at 1245). To hold that this open-ended", "paragraph_id": "para_917" }, { "text": "directive––which requires Defendants to create and follow", "paragraph_id": "para_918" }, { "text": "procedures to comply with applicable laws and policies––", "paragraph_id": "para_919" }, { "text": "creates an acting under relationship would sweep in nearly", "paragraph_id": "para_920" }, { "text": "every military contractors’ performance of their contractual", "paragraph_id": "para_921" }, { "text": "duties as an act “under color” of federal office.", "paragraph_id": "para_922" }, { "text": "Finally, Defendants argue that their management of", "paragraph_id": "para_923" }, { "text": "military housing assists the Navy in fulfilling “basic", "paragraph_id": "para_924" }, { "text": "30 CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC", "paragraph_id": "para_925" }, { "text": "governmental tasks” that the Government would have had to", "paragraph_id": "para_926" }, { "text": "fulfill itself. County of San Mateo, 32 F.4th at 756–57", "paragraph_id": "para_927" }, { "text": "(quoting Watson, 551 U.S. at 153). Defendants suggest that", "paragraph_id": "para_928" }, { "text": "this fact alone authorizes removal to federal court. Yet", "paragraph_id": "para_929" }, { "text": "Congress crafted the MPHI to authorize private-public", "paragraph_id": "para_930" }, { "text": "partnerships to assume day-to-day management and", "paragraph_id": "para_931" }, { "text": "responsibility for military housing. See Lake, 14 F.4th at", "paragraph_id": "para_932" }, { "text": "1005–06. If Defendants were correct that fulfillment of a", "paragraph_id": "para_933" }, { "text": "basic federal task was sufficient by itself to authorize", "paragraph_id": "para_934" }, { "text": "removal, then every landlord-tenant dispute pertaining to", "paragraph_id": "para_935" }, { "text": "housing authorized by the MPHI would end up in federal", "paragraph_id": "para_936" }, { "text": "court. Defendants’ argument stands in tension with", "paragraph_id": "para_937" }, { "text": "Congress’s purpose in enacting the MPHI.", "paragraph_id": "para_938" }, { "text": "Indeed, our caselaw recognizes that this factor alone is", "paragraph_id": "para_939" }, { "text": "not enough to create an “acting under” relationship. See", "paragraph_id": "para_940" }, { "text": "Goncalves, 865 F.3d at 1246; County of San Mateo, 32 F.4th", "paragraph_id": "para_941" }, { "text": "at 757 (citing Winters v. Diamond Shamrock Chem. Co., 149", "paragraph_id": "para_942" }, { "text": "F.3d 387, 399–400 (5th Cir. 1998)) (explaining that a", "paragraph_id": "para_943" }, { "text": "contractor acted under a federal officer when it produced", "paragraph_id": "para_944" }, { "text": "Agent Orange for the Vietnam War efforts because the", "paragraph_id": "para_945" }, { "text": "government otherwise would have had to do so itself and", "paragraph_id": "para_946" }, { "text": "because of the government’s “detailed specifications” and", "paragraph_id": "para_947" }, { "text": "“on-going supervision”).", "paragraph_id": "para_948" }, { "text": "Although we interpret the federal officer and agency", "paragraph_id": "para_949" }, { "text": "removal statute “broadly in favor of removal,” Durham, 445", "paragraph_id": "para_950" }, { "text": "F.3d at 1252, and “credit the defendant’s theory of the case,”", "paragraph_id": "para_951" }, { "text": "Defendants “must allege facts, not mere legal conclusions,", "paragraph_id": "para_952" }, { "text": "in compliance with the pleading standards established in Bell", "paragraph_id": "para_953" }, { "text": "Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and", "paragraph_id": "para_954" }, { "text": "Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).” Leite, 749 F.3d at", "paragraph_id": "para_955" }, { "text": "1121, 1124. Defendants’ allegations do not show that they", "paragraph_id": "para_956" }, { "text": "acted on behalf of the Navy “in a manner akin to an agency", "paragraph_id": "para_957" }, { "text": "relationship” or that the Navy exercised “subjection,", "paragraph_id": "para_958" }, { "text": "CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC 31", "paragraph_id": "para_959" }, { "text": "guidance, or control” over Defendants. County of San", "paragraph_id": "para_960" }, { "text": "Mateo, 32 F.4th at 756. Accordingly, Defendants have not", "paragraph_id": "para_961" }, { "text": "satisfied the “acting under” requirement of the federal officer", "paragraph_id": "para_962" }, { "text": "removal statute.", "paragraph_id": "para_963" }, { "text": "C.", "paragraph_id": "para_964" }, { "text": "Defendants finally contend that the instant case is", "paragraph_id": "para_965" }, { "text": "removable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) because", "paragraph_id": "para_966" }, { "text": "SDFH is a federal agency.13 To determine whether an entity", "paragraph_id": "para_967" }, { "text": "is an “agency” under 28 U.S.C. § 451, this court considers", "paragraph_id": "para_968" }, { "text": "the factors laid out in In re Hoag Ranches, 846 F.2d at 1227‒", "paragraph_id": "para_969" }, { "text": "28. These factors are (1) “the extent to which the alleged", "paragraph_id": "para_970" }, { "text": "agency performs a governmental function,” (2) “the scope of", "paragraph_id": "para_971" }, { "text": "government involvement in the organization’s", "paragraph_id": "para_972" }, { "text": "management,” (3) “whether its operations are financed by", "paragraph_id": "para_973" }, { "text": "the government,” (4) “whether persons other than the", "paragraph_id": "para_974" }, { "text": "government have a proprietary interest in the alleged agency", "paragraph_id": "para_975" }, { "text": "and whether the government’s interest is merely custodial or", "paragraph_id": "para_976" }, { "text": "incidental,” (5) “whether the organization is referred to as an", "paragraph_id": "para_977" }, { "text": "agency in other statutes,” and (6) “whether the organization", "paragraph_id": "para_978" }, { "text": "is treated as an arm of the government for other purposes,", "paragraph_id": "para_979" }, { "text": "such as amenability to suit under the Federal Tort Claims", "paragraph_id": "para_980" }, { "text": "Act.” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_981" }, { "text": "Regarding the first factor, Defendants note that “SDFH", "paragraph_id": "para_982" }, { "text": "took over operations for a significant volume of military", "paragraph_id": "para_983" }, { "text": "housing that was affordable to Navy servicemembers within", "paragraph_id": "para_984" }, { "text": "13 For purposes of § 1442(a)(1), a federal “agency” is defined as “any", "paragraph_id": "para_985" }, { "text": "department, independent establishment, commission, administration,", "paragraph_id": "para_986" }, { "text": "authority, board or bureau of the United States or any corporation in", "paragraph_id": "para_987" }, { "text": "which the United States has a proprietary interest, unless the context", "paragraph_id": "para_988" }, { "text": "shows that such term was intended to be used in a more limited sense.”", "paragraph_id": "para_989" }, { "text": "28 U.S.C. § 451; see also Lake, 14 F.4th at 1005 (applying § 451 to", "paragraph_id": "para_990" }, { "text": "§ 1442(a)(1)).", "paragraph_id": "para_991" }, { "text": "32 CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC", "paragraph_id": "para_992" }, { "text": "their [Basic Allowance for Housing", "paragraph_id": "para_993" }, { "text": "(“BAH”)] . . . something the Navy previously provided on", "paragraph_id": "para_994" }, { "text": "its own.” This argument, however, is foreclosed by Lake,", "paragraph_id": "para_995" }, { "text": "where we explained that “leasing housing on a military", "paragraph_id": "para_996" }, { "text": "installation under the MHPI” is not necessarily a", "paragraph_id": "para_997" }, { "text": "“historically and exclusively governmental function” and", "paragraph_id": "para_998" }, { "text": "“[m]erely leasing housing to a servicemember cannot itself", "paragraph_id": "para_999" }, { "text": "be a governmental function” since “BAH can be used on or", "paragraph_id": "para_1000" }, { "text": "off a military base.” 14 F.4th at 1005.", "paragraph_id": "para_1001" }, { "text": "Under the second factor, the government’s control over", "paragraph_id": "para_1002" }, { "text": "SDFH’s housing operations is limited. As in Lake, the", "paragraph_id": "para_1003" }, { "text": "“exclusive management and control” conferred to SDFH’s", "paragraph_id": "para_1004" }, { "text": "private managing member, Lincoln/Clark San Diego, LLC,", "paragraph_id": "para_1005" }, { "text": "coupled with the Navy’s “limited rights and", "paragraph_id": "para_1006" }, { "text": "responsibilities,” demonstrate that “the government only", "paragraph_id": "para_1007" }, { "text": "ever had limited control.” Id. at 1006. “At most, this factor", "paragraph_id": "para_1008" }, { "text": "does not weigh heavily in either direction” because an entity", "paragraph_id": "para_1009" }, { "text": "subject to federal regulation does not, by virtue of that", "paragraph_id": "para_1010" }, { "text": "regulation, become controlled by the federal government.", "paragraph_id": "para_1011" }, { "text": "Id. at 1006.", "paragraph_id": "para_1012" }, { "text": "As to the third factor, which relates to government", "paragraph_id": "para_1013" }, { "text": "financing, Defendants highlight that the United States", "paragraph_id": "para_1014" }, { "text": "capitalized SDFH at a rate of nearly twice the private", "paragraph_id": "para_1015" }, { "text": "partner. But as we observed in Lake, “[a]n initial financial", "paragraph_id": "para_1016" }, { "text": "contribution does not show ongoing operational financing.”", "paragraph_id": "para_1017" }, { "text": "Id. at 1006. And Defendants have not presented any", "paragraph_id": "para_1018" }, { "text": "evidence that the United States continued to finance SDFH’s", "paragraph_id": "para_1019" }, { "text": "operations beyond its contributions during the development", "paragraph_id": "para_1020" }, { "text": "period.", "paragraph_id": "para_1021" }, { "text": "Under the fourth factor, whether any person other than", "paragraph_id": "para_1022" }, { "text": "the government has a proprietary interest in the alleged", "paragraph_id": "para_1023" }, { "text": "agency, the answer is clearly yes. As noted above,", "paragraph_id": "para_1024" }, { "text": "CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC 33", "paragraph_id": "para_1025" }, { "text": "Lincoln/Clark San Diego, LLC, retains “exclusive", "paragraph_id": "para_1026" }, { "text": "management and control of the business of [SDFH].” See", "paragraph_id": "para_1027" }, { "text": "id. at 1006. Defendants’ reliance on Acron Investments, Inc.", "paragraph_id": "para_1028" }, { "text": "v. Federal Savings & Loan Insurance Corp., is misplaced.", "paragraph_id": "para_1029" }, { "text": "In Acron, we concluded that the Federal Savings & Loan", "paragraph_id": "para_1030" }, { "text": "Insurance Corporation was a federal agency based on the", "paragraph_id": "para_1031" }, { "text": "government’s proprietary interest in the defendant", "paragraph_id": "para_1032" }, { "text": "government corporation. 363 F.2d 236, 239‒40 (9th Cir.", "paragraph_id": "para_1033" }, { "text": "1966), cert denied, 385 U.S. 970 (1966). Acron, however, is", "paragraph_id": "para_1034" }, { "text": "distinguishable because that case addressed the character of", "paragraph_id": "para_1035" }, { "text": "a government corporation in which the government had once", "paragraph_id": "para_1036" }, { "text": "owned all stock but had since retired it. Id. at 240. Here, the", "paragraph_id": "para_1037" }, { "text": "Government has never retained an equivalent interest in", "paragraph_id": "para_1038" }, { "text": "SDFH. Rather, any interest the Government retains in", "paragraph_id": "para_1039" }, { "text": "SDFH is merely “custodial” or “incidental” in light of", "paragraph_id": "para_1040" }, { "text": "Lincoln/Clark San Diego, LLC’s exclusive control over the", "paragraph_id": "para_1041" }, { "text": "venture’s business. Hoag Ranches, 846 F.2d at 1228; see", "paragraph_id": "para_1042" }, { "text": "also Lake, 14 F.4th at 1006 (finding the government’s", "paragraph_id": "para_1043" }, { "text": "interest in the defendant public-private venture insufficient", "paragraph_id": "para_1044" }, { "text": "to satisfy factor four).", "paragraph_id": "para_1045" }, { "text": "With respect to the fifth factor, Defendants do not cite", "paragraph_id": "para_1046" }, { "text": "any statute that identifies SDFH or any public-private", "paragraph_id": "para_1047" }, { "text": "venture formed for the purpose of military housing as an", "paragraph_id": "para_1048" }, { "text": "agency. And Defendants concede that they do not satisfy", "paragraph_id": "para_1049" }, { "text": "factor six. Balancing these factors, we conclude that", "paragraph_id": "para_1050" }, { "text": "Defendants have not demonstrated that SDFH is a federal", "paragraph_id": "para_1051" }, { "text": "agency under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).", "paragraph_id": "para_1052" }, { "text": "IV.", "paragraph_id": "para_1053" }, { "text": "In light of the foregoing, the district court correctly", "paragraph_id": "para_1054" }, { "text": "determined that Defendants have not carried their burden in", "paragraph_id": "para_1055" }, { "text": "demonstrating federal enclave jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_1056" }, { "text": "34 CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC", "paragraph_id": "para_1057" }, { "text": "§ 1331 or federal officer or agency jurisdiction under 28", "paragraph_id": "para_1058" }, { "text": "U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).", "paragraph_id": "para_1059" }, { "text": "AFFIRMED.", "paragraph_id": "para_1060" } ], "word_count": 8910, "cites": [ "608 U.S. 1", "309 U.S. 18", "593 U.S. 230", "371\nU.S. 245", "114 U.S. 525", "319 U.S. 312", "594 U.S. 382", "504 U.S. 374", "551 U.S. 142", "550 U.S. 544", "556 U.S. 662", "385 U.S. 970", "22 F.4th 1092", "14 F.4th 993", "846 F.2d 1225", "176 F.3d\n1241", "456 F.3d 933", "749 F.3d\n1117", "52 F.4th 916", "42 F.3d\n1185", "445 F.3d\n1247", "32 F.4th 733", "955 F.3d 795", "904 F.3d 1095", "85 F.4th 546", "951\nF.3d 286", "939 F.3d 981", "797 F.3d 720", "150 F.4th 1151", "865 F.3d\n1237", "149\nF.3d 387", "363 F.2d 236" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "55eb0b2ecc70a4b94eb28686e69bd92e8c0d1348d482891b1566dc55a95651a0", "source_url": "https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/09/24/24-1256.pdf", "fetched_at": "2026-10-04T17:57:20.29+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca9-24-1256-2026-09-24", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca9-24-1256-2026-09-24", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca9-24-1256-2026-09-24", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca9-24-1256-2026-09-24", "verification": { "stored_sha256": "55eb0b2ecc70a4b94eb28686e69bd92e8c0d1348d482891b1566dc55a95651a0", "recomputed_sha256": "55eb0b2ecc70a4b94eb28686e69bd92e8c0d1348d482891b1566dc55a95651a0", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-10-04T17:57:22.765Z" } }, "hash": "sha256:c750e9d9fc2f0b281116d97a3c356824437c84d2b8625bc451f0439cb35db731", "version": "legal-2026-10-04", "expires": "2026-10-05T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-04+legal-2026-10-04+2026-10-04T14:11:49", "content_hash": "sha256:c750e9d9fc2f0b281116d97a3c356824437c84d2b8625bc451f0439cb35db731", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-04T18:57:22.929Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca9-24-1256-2026-09-24", "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering" }