Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02659/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02659-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Kent Terry, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

William Newell, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-12-02659-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 The United States has moved to substitute itself as a defendant with respect to the 

cross-claim of Defendants Lone Wolf Trading Company, LLC and Andrew L. Howard 

(“Cross-Claimants”) against Defendants Emory Hurley, William Newell, David Voth, 

Hope McAllister, Tonya English, William McMahon, and George Gillett (“CrossDefendants”). Doc. 61. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the United 

States’ motion. 

 Cross-Claimants allege that their cross-claim arises out of the “same transaction or 

set of occurrences” as described in Plaintiffs’ complaint (doc. 48, ¶ 54), and that “[b]ut 

for [Cross-Defendants’] actions in soliciting and encouraging the assistance of [CrossClaimants] in making the sales of weapons, Cross-Claimants would not have made” the 

sales that are the subject of the Plaintiffs’ complaint (id., ¶ 67). 

 The Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act (“Westfall 

Act”) provides that a claim against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act is 

the exclusive remedy for persons seeking to recover damages for any “negligent or 

Case 2:12-cv-02659-DGC Document 70 Filed 11/18/13 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

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 

wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the 

scope of his office or employment.” 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(1). All other “civil action[s] or 

proceeding[s] . . . against the employee or the employee’s estate [are] precluded without 

regard to when the act or omission occurred.” Id. Under the Westfall Act, “federal 

employees receive absolute immunity from suit for their negligent or wrongful act[s] or 

omission[s] while acting within the scope of [their] office or employment.” Jackson v. 

Tate, 648 F.3d 729, 735 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotations omitted). The Westfall Act 

grants the Attorney General authority to certify that a federal employee was acting within 

the scope of his or her employment at the time in question. If the Attorney General 

makes such a certification, the United States must be substituted as the defendant. Id. at 

735. The Attorney General has delegated authority to certify scope of employment to 

any Director of the Torts Branch, Civil Division. See 28 C.F.R. § 15.4(a). 

 A Director of the Torts Branch, Civil Division, has certified that the actions taken 

by Cross-Defendants were within the scope of their employment. The Court concludes, 

therefore, that the United States must be substituted in place of Cross-Defendants with 

respect to the cross-claim filed by Cross-Claimants. 

IT IS ORDERED that the United States’ motion for substitution (Doc. 61) is 

granted. 

 Dated this 15th day of November, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-02659-DGC Document 70 Filed 11/18/13 Page 2 of 2