Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-mc-00116/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-mc-00116-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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 This matter is deemed to be suitable for decision without oral *

argument. E.D. Cal. R. 230(g).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

IN RE THE PAT DOSSIE TRUST )

) 2:09-mc-00116-GEB-KJM

)

) ORDER GRANTING THE UNITED

) STATES’ MOTION TO DISMISS

) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND QUASH

) SUBPOENA AGAINST RUSSELL

) COTTRELL, M.D. AND REMANDING

) ACTION TO STATE COURT*

)

On December 18, 2009, the United States filed a motion on

behalf of Doctor Russell Cottrell, in which it seeks an order quashing

the trial subpoena and dismissing the order to show cause for failure

to appear issued to Dr. Cottrell by the Butte County Superior Court. 

(Docket No. 5.) The latter order required that Dr. Cottrell appear

before the state court to explain why he should not be sanctioned

and/or held in contempt of court for his failure to obey the trial

subpoena. The United States argues the state court lacked

jurisdiction to enforce the subpoena and order since Dr. Cottrell is a

federal employee who failed to appear at trial as a result of having

Case 2:09-mc-00116-GEB -KJM Document 11 Filed 01/21/10 Page 1 of 8
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

2

been instructed not to appear, and that instruction was authorized by

a Department of Veterans Affairs regulation. The subpoena and order

arose in the context of a state court probate proceeding, In re the

Pat Dossie Trust, case number PR-38990, which the United States

removed to federal court. (Welch Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. E.) Patrick Dossie,

a party in the underlying probate matter, opposes the current motion. 

For the reasons stated below, the United States’ motion is GRANTED and

the remainder of this action is REMANDED to the Butte County Superior

Court from which it was removed.

I. BACKGROUND

Dr. Cottrell is a psychiatrist employed by the United States

Department of Veteran Affairs (the “VA”) at the VA Clinic in Chico,

California. (Welch Decl. ¶ 1.) Attorney David Rush, counsel for

Carolyn Roche, who is one of the parties in the probate action,

notified Dr. Cottrell in a letter dated October 8, 2009, that he had

been designated as an expert witness in the Dossie case, which was set

for a two day trial commencing on November 23, 2009. (Id. ¶ 2, Ex.

A.) Dr. Cottrell treated Pat Dossie, the decedent whose estate is the

subject of the Dossie probate litigation. (Welch Decl., Ex. B.) Mr.

Rush’s letter suggests he sought Dr. Cottrell’s testimony on the

decedent’s “mental capacity to know what he was doing” when he made an

amendment to his trust. (Welch Decl., Ex. A.)

Dr. Cottrell responded to Mr. Rush’s October 8 letter

through VA Staff Attorney Colleen Welch. (Id. ¶¶ 1,3, Ex. B.) Ms.

Welch explained to Mr. Rush, in a letter dated October 14, 2009, that

“[u]nder the VA’s Touhy Regulations found at 38 C.F.R. 14.800 et

seq.,” Doctor Cottrell could not serve as an expert witness in the

Dossie case. (Id. ¶ 3, Ex. B.) Following receipt of Ms. Welch’s

Case 2:09-mc-00116-GEB -KJM Document 11 Filed 01/21/10 Page 2 of 8
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

3

letter, Mr. Rush phoned Ms. Welch and explained the “circumstances of

the case and why he wanted Dr. Cottrell as a witness.” (Id. ¶ 4.) 

Ms. Welch and Mr. Rush then agreed that Dr. Cottrell could be deposed

but he would not appear at the trial. (Id.) 

However, on November 12, 2009, Mr. Rush faxed Ms. Welch a

civil subpoena dated November 10, 2009 (the “Subpoena”), issued to Dr.

Cottrell, and requiring his personal appearance on November 23, 2009

at the trial of the Dossie case. (Id. ¶ 5, Ex. C.) Ms. Welch

responded to the Subpoena on behalf of Dr. Cottrell in a letter dated

November 13, 2009, “informing Mr. Rush that the VA had weighed the

factors in 38 C.F.R. § 14.804 regarding when VA personnel will be

authorized to testify, and that it had determined that it would not

produce Dr. Cottrell for testimony.” (Id. ¶ 6, Ex. D.) Ms. Welch

instructed Dr. Cottrell not to appear at the trial, and Dr. Cottrell

did not appear. (Id. ¶ 6.) 

On December 2, 2009, the Butte County Superior Court issued

an “Order to Show Cause” (the “Order”) to Dr. Cottrell, ordering that

he appear at a hearing scheduled for December 22, 2009 and “show cause

re: failure to appear; sanctions and/or contempt of court.” (Id. ¶ 7,

Ex. E.) On December 11, 2009, the United States filed a notice of

removal on behalf of Dr. Cottrell in which it removed the Dossie case

to this federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). (Notice

of Removal ¶ 9.)

II. DISCUSSION

A. Removal Jurisdiction

A district court has “a duty to establish subject matter

jurisdiction over [a] removed action sua sponte, whether the parties

raise[] the issue or not.” United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell

Case 2:09-mc-00116-GEB -KJM Document 11 Filed 01/21/10 Page 3 of 8
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 pertinent part, 38 C.F.R. § 14.808(a) provides: 1

VA personnel shall not provide, with or without

compensation, opinion or expert testimony in any legal

proceedings concerning official VA information, subjects

or activities, except on behalf of the United States or

a party represented by the United States Department of

Justice . . . . If, despite the final determination of

the responsible VA official, a court of competent

jurisdiction or other appropriate authority, orders the

expert or opinion testimony of VA personnel, the

personnel shall notify the responsible VA official of

such order . . . . If directed by the appropriate VA

official after consultation with the appropriate United

States Attorney’s office, however, the affected VA

personnel shall respectfully decline to comply with the

demand, request or order.

Section 1442(a)(1) provides that a “civil action . . . 2

commenced in a State court against . . . the United States or any agency

thereof or any officer (or person acting under that officer)” “may be

removed by them” to a United States district court “embracing the place

wherein [the civil action] is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).

4

& Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). The United States

argues removal is proper under “28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) because Dr.

Cottrell is a physician employed by the United States Department of

Veterans Affairs . . ., an agency of the United States, who was acting

within his official capacity and/or under the color of duly enacted

and promulgated federal law at all times relevant . . ., and is now

the subject of an order issued by a state court in a civil action.” 

(Notice of Removal ¶ 9.) The United States’ contends Dr. Cottrell’s

refusal to appear in the state probate proceeding resulted from his

compliance with Ms. Welch’s directive, which was issued under 38

C.F.R. 14.808.1

The United States, however, has not demonstrated that 28

U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1)(“Section 1442(a)(1)”) authorizes this court to

exercise removal jurisdiction over the entire state probate action.2

Case 2:09-mc-00116-GEB -KJM Document 11 Filed 01/21/10 Page 4 of 8
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

5

“[T]he probate exception reserves [exclusive jurisdiction] to state

probate courts the probate of a will and the administration of a

decedent’s estate . . . .” Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 311-12

(2006); see also Bedo v. McGuire, 767 F.2d 305, 306 (6th Cir.

1985)(stating that “federal courts have no probate jurisdiction.”). 

Nonetheless, removal of the ancillary proceeding in which the Butte

County Superior Court seeks to compel Dr. Cottrell to appear was

proper under Section 1442(a)(1). See Swett v. Schenk, 792 F.2d 1447,

1450 (9th Cir. 1986) (noting that a contempt action against a federal

officer, while ancillary to the underlying state court proceeding, is

distinct and independently removable). “Although no contempt order

was entered in the state court[,] . . . [Dr. Cottrell was] ordered to

[appear], and it is clear that [his] failure to comply with the state

court’s order could result in contempt sanctions; this is sufficient

to make [Dr. Cottrell] [a] defendant in the ancillary [contempt

proceeding] . . . .” Dent v. Packerland Packing Co., Inc., 144 F.R.D.

675, 678 (D. Neb. 1992)(quotations and citations omitted); see also

F.B.I v. Superior Court, 507 F. Supp. 2d 1082, 1089 (N.D. Cal.

2007)(finding removal of ancillary contempt proceeding against federal

employee proper under Section 1442(a)(1)). Therefore, while removal

jurisdiction does not extend to the entire state probate action, it

does confer jurisdiction over the ancillary dispute involving Dr.

Cottrell and the United States’ motion.

B. The State Court’s Jurisdiction to Enforce the Subpoena and Order

Patrick Dossie opposes the United States’ motion, arguing

the VA failed to properly apply the factors under 28 C.F.R. § 14.804

in determining whether Dr. Cottrell would be permitted to testify at

the Dossie trial. However, “[a] consideration on the merits” as to

Case 2:09-mc-00116-GEB -KJM Document 11 Filed 01/21/10 Page 5 of 8
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

The United States also argues that the state court lacked 3

jurisdiction to enforce the Subpoena and Order since Dr. Cottrell failed

to comply in reliance upon a validly promulgated federal regulation.

This argument, and the validity of 38 C.F.R. § 14.808(a), is not

reached.

6

whether the VA validly withheld Dr. Cottrell’s testimony, “can play no

part in [this] decision.” In re Elko County Grand Jury, 109 F.3d 554,

556 (9th Cir. 1997). “The appropriate means for challenging the

[VA’s] decision [to withhold Dr. Cottrell’s testimony] . . . is an

action under the Administrative Procedures Act in federal court.” Id.

at 557 n.1.

The United States argues the doctrine of sovereign immunity

bars the Butte County Superior Court from enforcing the Subpoena and

Order. (Mot. to Dismiss 4.) “A suit cannot be brought against the 3

United States or its employees without an express congressional waiver

of [sovereign] immunity.” F.B.I., 507 F. Supp. 2d at 1094 (citing

Block v. North Dakota, 461 U.S. 273, 287 (1983) & Army & Air Force

Exch. Serv. V. Sheehan, 456 U.S. 728, 734 (1982)). A state court

“subpoena proceeding against a federal employee to compel him to

testify about information obtained in his official capacity is

inherently that of an action against the United States . . . .” Boron

Oil Co. v. Downie, 873 F.2d 67, 70-71 (4th Cir. 1989); see also Exxon

Shipping Co. v. U.S. Dept. Of Interior, 34 F.3d 774, 778 (9th Cir.

1994)(stating that “[t]he limitations on a state court’s subpoena and

contempt powers stem from the sovereign immunity of the United States

and from the Supremacy Clause” (quotations and citations omitted)). 

“There are two recognized exceptions to the principle that sovereign

immunity bars a suit against a government employee: 1) 

Case 2:09-mc-00116-GEB -KJM Document 11 Filed 01/21/10 Page 6 of 8
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

7

when an employee’s actions exceed the scope of the statutory powers

conferred upon him or her; and 2) when, despite acting within the

scope of his or her authority, the employee was acting

unconstitutionally.” F.B.I, 507 F. Supp. 2d at 1094. Neither

exception is applicable since there is no suggestion that Dr. Cottrell

exceeded the scope of his authority or that he was acting

unconstitutionally. Further, “Congress has not expressly waived

sovereign immunity in cases in which state courts seek to compel

government employees to submit to subpoenas or court orders.” Id. at

1094. Therefore, “sovereign immunity deprives the state court of

jurisdiction to enforce” the Subpoena and Order. Id.; see also In re

Elko County Grand Jury, 109 F.3d at 556(stating that “cases involving

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

federal officers have held that sovereign immunity bars the

enforcement of the subpoena”).

Since the Butte County Superior Court lacks jurisdiction to

enforce the Subpoena and Order, the doctrine of derivative

jurisdiction similarly deprives this federal court from having

jurisdiction to compel Dr. Cottrell to appear before the state court. 

See In re Elko County Grand Jury, 109 F.3d at 556 (stating that

“because this case was removed from state court pursuant to § 1442,

our jurisdiction is derivative of the state court’s jurisdiction.”);

see also F.B.I., 507 F. Supp. 2d at 1090 (concluding that “the

doctrine of derivative jurisdiction applies to § 1442 removals”). 

Under “the doctrine of derivative jurisdiction, a federal court is

without jurisdiction over a suit removed to it from a state court if

the state court from which it was removed lacked subject matter

Case 2:09-mc-00116-GEB -KJM Document 11 Filed 01/21/10 Page 7 of 8
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

8

jurisdiction . . . .” F.B.I., 507 F. Supp. 2d at 1090. Therefore,

the Subpoena and Order “must be quashed.” Id. at 1095.

However, as noted above, removal jurisdiction exists only

over the ancillary proceeding in which the state court seeks to compel

Dr. Cottrell to appear. Therefore, the remainder of the Dossie case

is remanded. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the stated reasons, the United States’ motion is

GRANTED. The Subpoena and Order issued by the Butte County Superior

Court are QUASHED and VACATED, respectively. The state probate

proceeding, case number PR-38990, is REMANDED to the Butte County

Superior Court from which it was removed.

Dated: January 20, 2010

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:09-mc-00116-GEB -KJM Document 11 Filed 01/21/10 Page 8 of 8