Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00328/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00328-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
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 

FILED 

MAY 2 0 2011 

CLERK, U.S, DISTRlCT COURT 

:~UTHERN DISTRICT F CALIFORNIA 

OEPUTY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GUY W. PARKER, 

vs. 

Plaintiff, 

BETTY W. CLINGERMAN, 

Defendant. 

CASE NO. l1-CV-0328 BEN (RBB) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

REMAND AND DENYING 

RECONSIDERATION 

[Docket No. 13] 

On May 18, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand that is currently pending before the 

Court. This Court, however, has already analyzed the remand issue and has already denied Plaintiff 

the remand that he requests. (See Docket No. 11.) Therefore, the Court construes Plaintiff's motion 

as amotion forreconsideration under Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure 59 and 60. For the reasons set 

forth below, reconsideration is DENIED. 

BACKGROUND 

This action appears to arise from Plaintiffs contract with the USAF/AFMC, Aeronautical 

Systems Center. (CompI., Ex. E.) According to the Complaint, Betty Clingerman signed the contract 

on behalf of the United States, as the "contracting officer." Id. Plaintiff alleges Ms. Clingerman 

represented that she had authority to enter into the contract when, in fact, she did not. (CompI., ~~ 3­

4.) 

- 1 - llcv0328 

III 

Case 3:11-cv-00328-BEN-RBB Document 14 Filed 05/20/11 Page 1 of 3
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 

Plaintiff initiated this action in San Diego Superior Court. On February 17, 2011, the United 

States filed a Notice ofSubstitution, substituting itself as Defendant in place ofBetty W. Clingerman. 

(Docket No.5.) The United States also filed a Notice ofRemoval, thereby removing the action to this 

Court. (Docket No.1.) 

On February 28,2011, Plaintiff filed amotion to remand, which the Court denied on May 2, 

2011. (Docket No. 11.) On May 18,2011, Plaintiff filed a second motion to remand ("Motion"), 

which is currently pending before the Court. (Docket No. 13.) Plaintiff is bound by the Court's prior 

order of May 2, 2011. However, the Court is required to liberally construe Plaintiffs pleadings, as 

Plaintiffis a pro separty. See, e.g., Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987). Therefore, 

the Court construes Plaintiffs Motion as a motion for reconsideration and analyzes it accordingly. 

DISCUSSION 

"Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered 

evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an 

intervening change in controlling law." School Dist. No.1J, Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 

1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing All Hawaii Tours, Corp. v. Polynesian Cultural Ctr., 116 F.R.D. 

645, 648 (D. Haw. 1987), rev 'd on other grounds, 855 F.2d 860 (9th Cir. 1988)); see also Carroll v. 

Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Here, in its May 2, 2011 order, the Court found that the case was properly removed under 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1442(a) and 2679(d), based on Defendant United States' Certification of Scope of 

Employment. (See Docket Nos. 1,5,11.) Under the Westfall Act, the United States Attomey General 

has discretion to certify that an individual was acting within the scope ofhis or her federal employment 

at the time ofthe alleged incident. 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d). Upon such certification, the action becomes 

one against the United States, and the Government is substituted as the party defendant in place ofthe 

individual employee. Id. Once the determination is made and the case is removed, this Court has no 

choice but to retain jurisdiction. Id. 

Nothing in the record or in Plaintiffs current motion for remand shows that the Court's 

conclusion was clear error or manifestly unjust. Additionally, there is no indication on the record or 

elsewhere of newly discovered evidence or an intervening change in controlling law that shows 

- 2 - l1cv0328 

Case 3:11-cv-00328-BEN-RBB Document 14 Filed 05/20/11 Page 2 of 3
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 

reconsideration is appropriate. Accordingly, the Court denies reconsideration ofits May 2, 2011 order. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs Motion (Docket No. 13) is DENIED. Plaintiffis 

advised that the hearing scheduled for June 27,2011 on Defendant's motion to dismiss or for summary 

judgment remains on the calendar, unless otherwise notified by the Court. Any responses to 

Defendant's motion must comply with Local Civil Rule 7.1 

IT IS SO dERED. 

Date: May 11-, 2011 

Hon. T. Benitez 

United States District Court Judge 

- 3 - llcv0328 

Case 3:11-cv-00328-BEN-RBB Document 14 Filed 05/20/11 Page 3 of 3