Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01974/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01974-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Notice of Removal - Suit against Federal Officer

---

1

18-CV-1974 JLS (AGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE SUBPOENA PROCEEDINGS 

(SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA v. AGENT BORBOA, 

EMPLOYEE OF THE DRUG 

ENFORCEMENT AGENCY)

Case No.: 18-CV-1974 JLS (AGS)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S 

MOTION TO QUASH

(ECF No. 3)

Presently before the Court is the United States and Agent Mario Borboa’s

(collectively the “United States”) Motion to Quash Subpoenas and Vacate Bench Warrant. 

(“Motion to Quash,” ECF No. 3.) Also before the Court is state court Defendant William 

Sherman’s Opposition to the Motion, (“Opp’n,” ECF No. 4.), and the United States’ Reply, 

(“Reply,” ECF No. 5.) Having considered the parties’ arguments and the law, the Court 

rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

This motion arises from two state court subpoenas issued to Federal DEA Agent 

Mario Borboa on July 23, 2018, by Defendant William Sherman through his attorney 

William Daley. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) The subpoenas stem from a state criminal action, People 

of the State of California v. William Sherman, case number SCS298500, currently pending 

Case 3:18-cv-01974-JLS-AGS Document 7 Filed 10/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

18-CV-1974 JLS (AGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

in the San Diego Superior Court. The subpoenas required appearances by Agent Borboa 

on August 23, 2018, and September 10, 2018, as well as production of records. (Id.) 

After receiving the subpoenas, the United States responded with a letter to Mr. Daley 

explaining why the Department of Justice was declining to authorize Agent Borboa to 

testify or produce the requested records, and why the state court subpoenas were 

unenforceable. (Id.) On August 23, 2018, Agent Borboa did not appear at the state court 

hearing pursuant to the Department of Justice’s decision. The state court issued a bench 

warrant/warrant of attachment for Agent Borboa at that hearing for his failure to appear. 

(Id.) The next day, the United States properly removed only the subpoena/contempt 

proceedings to this Court under Section 1442(a)(1) of Title 28 of the United States Code. 

(See ECF No. 1.) The United States then filed the Motion to Quash now before the Court. 

ANALYSIS

The outcome of this Motion turns on whether this Court has jurisdiction under the 

doctrine of derivative jurisdiction. To resolve that question, it must first determine whether 

the state court had jurisdiction to issue and enforce the subpoena directed against Federal 

Agent Borboa. 

I. Derivative Jurisdiction

Section 1442 of Title 28 of the United States Code governs removal in cases 

involving “federal officers or agencies sued or prosecuted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a). Both 

state court subpoenas and contempt actions directed at federal employees are removable 

actions under section 1442(a). Swett v. Schenk, 792 F.2d 1447, 1450 (9th Cir. 1986) 

(holding a contempt actions against federal officials may be removed under section 

1442(a)); Nationwide Investors v. Miller, 793 F.2d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding 

state court subpoena orders directed against federal employees are actions properly 

removed to federal court). Agent Borboa is a federal officer, against whom the state court 

issued a subpoena and bench warrant for contempt. Therefore, removal under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1442(a)(1) was proper. 

///

Case 3:18-cv-01974-JLS-AGS Document 7 Filed 10/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

18-CV-1974 JLS (AGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

In cases removed from state court under section 1442, the doctrine of derivative 

jurisdiction applies. See Fed. Bureau of Investigation v. Superior Court of Cal., 507 F. 

Supp. 2d 1082, 1092 (N.D. Cal. 2007). Under the doctrine, a federal court’s jurisdiction is 

derivative of the state court’s jurisdiction—if the state court lacks jurisdiction, the federal 

court acquires none upon removal, even if it would have had jurisdiction had the case 

originally been filed in federal court. Beeman v. Olson, 828 F. 2d 620, 621 (9th Cir. 1987). 

“Accordingly, this Court must examine whether the state court from which the present 

matter was removed had jurisdiction to enforce the state court subpoenas and order. If the 

state court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the subpoenas and order, they must be quashed.” 

Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 507 F. Supp. 2d at 1092.

II. State Court Jurisdiction

“The basic rule of sovereign immunity is that the United States cannot be sued”

unless Congress expressly waives immunity. Block v. North Dakota ex rel. Bd. of Univ. & 

Sch. Lands, 461 U.S. 273, 287 (1983). Absent a congressional waiver, sovereign immunity 

applies to suits against government employees, unless a recognized exception applies. 

Dugan v. Rank, 372 U.S. 609, 621 (1963). The Ninth Circuit has held that in “cases 

involving § 1442(a) removals of state subpoena proceedings against unwilling federal 

officers . . . sovereign immunity bars the enforcement of the subpoena.” In re Elko Cnty. 

Grand Jury, 109 F.3d 554, 556 (9th Cir.1997). 

The United States argues the state court lacks jurisdiction to issue the subpoenas 

because Agent Borboa is a federal agent, and thus immune from suit. (Motion to Quash at 

3.) There has been no waiver of sovereign immunity and no exceptions to sovereign 

immunity apply. (Id.) Thus, according to the United States, the state court lacked 

jurisdiction to issue or enforce the subpoenas, and for that reason this Court lacks 

jurisdiction under the doctrine of derivative jurisdiction. (Id.) 

The Court agrees with the United States. Mr. Sherman has offered no arguments as 

to why the state court has jurisdiction to enforce the subpoenas, nor why this Court has 

jurisdiction to compel any of the disclosures he seeks. (See generally Opp’n.) Despite 

Case 3:18-cv-01974-JLS-AGS Document 7 Filed 10/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

18-CV-1974 JLS (AGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Mr. Sherman’s arguments concerning the merits of the subpoena, this Court cannot reach 

the merits unless it has jurisdiction—which it does not. Agent Borboa is a federal officer, 

and Mr. Sherman has offered no exceptions to sovereign immunity. Thus, sovereign 

immunity applies, and the state court lacked jurisdiction to issue or enforce the subpoena.

Furthermore, the state court also lacked authority to issue the bench warrant under 

federal regulations. Federal regulations provide that when the United States is not a party 

to an action, Department of Justice employees may not disclose any information or produce 

any material in response to a state court demand without proper approval from Department 

officials. See 28 C.F.R. § 16.22(a). If Department officials order subordinate employees 

not to comply with a state court subpoena pursuant to federal regulations, the employees 

cannot be held in contempt. United States ex rel Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462, 468 (1951). 

Here, the United States is not a party to the underlying action, and Agent Borboa’s 

superiors ordered him not to comply with the state court subpoena. Under federal 

regulations, Agent Borboa had the authority to refuse to comply, and the contempt order 

by the state court was improper. 

CONCLUSION

Under the doctrine of derivative jurisdiction this Court acquired no jurisdiction when 

Agent Borboa removed the case because the state court lacked jurisdiction to issue or 

enforce the subpoenas. Accordingly, the United States’ Motion to Quash is GRANTED. 

This case is DISMISSED, and the Clerk will close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 9, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-01974-JLS-AGS Document 7 Filed 10/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4