N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M IC HAEL B . STOKER ,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A;

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s, and ANDREW

R . W HEELER ; e t a l., De fe nda n ts. No. 21-55993 D.C . No. 2:21-c v-00733-JAK-E M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia John A. Kronstadt, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

June 13, 2022 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : R

AW LINSON, C HR ISTEN, a nd KOH, C irc u it Judge s. 

# FIL ED JUL 6 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Pla intiff M ic ha e l Stoke r (Stoke r) a ppe a ls the distric t

c o urt’ s orde r substituting the

Unite d State s for individual de fe nda nts on thegrounds tha

t the y we re a c ting within the

“ c ourse and sc ope of the ir e m ploy m e n t” pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . § 2679(d). The distric t c ourt subse que ntly dism i sse d Stoke r’ s c o m

pla int be c a use the Unite d

State s ha s not wa ive d sove re i gn im m unity for de fam ation suits pursua nt to theFe d e ra l Tort C la im s Ac t, 28 U.S.C . § 2680(h). Stoke r argue s: (1) the d istric t c o urt de n ie d his right to Due Proc e ss by

fa iling to gra

n t him disc ove ry or an e vide ntia

ry he aring; (2) Stoke r wa s e ntitle d to ha ve a jury de c ide the “ c ourse and sc o pe ” issue ; a

n d (3) de fe nda

nts a c te d outsidethe sc ope of the ir e m ploy m e nt. W e hav e jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm . B e c a

use the pa rtie s are fam ilia

r with thefa c ts, we re c ite only those ne c e ssa

ry to de c ide this a ppe a l. 1) Stoke r argue s the distric t c ourt e rre d by holding tha

t de fe nda nts did not a c t outsidethe sc o p e of the ir e m ploy m e n t whe n the y

issue d a n a lle ge dly de fam at ory

sta te m e nt on Fe brua

ry 6th a t 9:00 pm ET. Stoke r c onte nds the sta te m e nt fe ll outside

the c ourse an d sc ope of e m ploy m e nt be c a

use de fe nda

nts

“ m a lic iously

and knowingly” m a de fa lse public sta te m e nts a bout him a fte r he wa s no longe r an e m

ploy e e , none of whic h

wa s in step with thege ne ra l proc e dure s of the E nvironm e nta l Prote c t ion Age nc y (“ EPA” ) for te rm inating e m ploy e e s . 2Unde r the W e stfa ll Ac t , “ sc o pe of e m ploy m e nt” is de te rm ine d by

sta te re sponde at supe rior la

w in the sta

te whe re the tort oc c urre d. Pe lle tie r v . Fe d. HomeLoan Bank

of S.F. , 968 F.2d 865, 876 (9th C ir. 1992). In C a lifornia , a n e m ploy e e a c t s within the

sc ope of e m

ploy m e nt whe n: (1) the c ha lle nge d a c t wa s re quire d by

or broa dly

inc i d e nta l to thee m

p loy e e ’ s dutie s ; or (2) the e m ploy e r re a s ona bly c ould ha ve fore se e n the e m

p loy e e ’ s c onduc t. Sunde rland v . Loc k he e d Martin Ae ronautic a l Sy

s. Supp. C

o ., 130 C a l. App. 4th 1, 9 (2005). Em ploy e e a c tivity fa lls within the

c ourse and sc ope of e m

ploy m e nt whe n, in thec onte xt of the p artic ula

r e nte rprise , a

n e m ploy e e ’ s c o nduc t is not so unusua l or sta rtling tha t it would se e m

unfa i r to inc lude the loss re sulting from it a m o ng othe r c osts of the e m ploy e r’ s busine ss. Farme rs Ins. Group v. C ounty of Santa C

lara , 11 C a l. 4th 992, 1003 (1995). On the fa c ts of this c a se , we c o nc lude de fe nda nts’ a c tions fe ll within the c ourse and sc ope o f the ir e m ploy m e nt be c a

use the Fe brua

ry 6th sta te m e n t c onc e rne d the c irc um sta

nc e s surrounding Stoke

r’ s firing a

nd the ir re a sons for it, and issuing pre ss re le a s e s a bout EPA’ s c ha

nge in le a de rship wa s within the sc ope of the ir dutie s. Se e Sanborn v . C hronic le Pub. C

o ., 18 C a l. 3d 406, 410–11 (1976) (holding e m

ploy e e ’ s re sponse to a

pre ss inquiry

wa s within the

sc ope of his e m ploy m e nt). The tim ing a

nd c onte nt of the sta

te m e nt wa s not ty

pic a l, but 3de fe nda

n ts’ pre ss re le a se wa s issue d in thewake of Stoke r’ s “ All Ha nds” e m a il that wa s public ly

disse m inate d. 2) Stoke r furthe r argue s the distric t c ourt e rre d by fa iling to allow limite d disc ove ry a s to whe t

he r de fe nda

nts’ c onduc t e xc e e de d the sc ope of the ir e m ploy m e nt. Lim ite d disc ove ry

is pe rm i tte d in a

W e stfa ll Ac t c a se whe n a pla i ntiff a lle ge s suffic i e nt fa c t s tha t, ta ke n a s true , would e sta

blish the de fe nda

nt’ s a c tions e x c e e de d

the sc ope of the i r e m

ploy m e nt. Sale h v . Bush , 848 F.3d 880, 892 (9th C ir. 2017) (c iting W

ute r ic h v . Murtha , 562 F.3d 375, 381 (D.C . C ir. 2009)). B e c a use Stoke r ha s not m a de suc h a showing he re , we c onc lude the distric t c ourt did not e rr by

de c lining to give Stoke r the opportunity to c onduc t lim ite d disc ove ry . Additionally , Stoke r c onte nds the distric t c ourt viola te d his DueProc e ss rights by fa iling to give

him the opportunity

to de ve lop his c l a im s through disc ove ry or a he aring. Howe ve r, whe the r to gra nt disc ove ry or an e vide n tia ry he aring to re solve a

W e stfa ll Ac t c e rtific ation c ha lle n ge is a disc re tiona

ry m atte r for the distric t c ourt’ s de te rm ination. Sale h , 848 F.3d a t 892. Stoke r wa s not e ntitle d to disc ove ry

or a he aring a s a m atte r of right a nd the distric t c ourt did not a buse i ts disc re tion in de c l ining to allow disc ove ry , give n the nature of Stoke r’ s a lle gations. W e c onc lude the re wa s no due proc e s s viola tion. 43) Fina lly , Stoke r argue s he wa s e ntitle d to a jury ’ s de te rm ination of whe the r de fe n d ants’ a c tions fe ll within the “ c o urse and sc ope ” of the ir e m ploy m e nt. B ut a c tions a ga inst theUnite d State s ordina rily “ sha ll be trie d by

the c ourt without a

jury ,” 28 U.S.C . § 2402, a nd, upon sc ope -of-e m

ploy m e nt c e rtific ation, a

n “ a c tion is de e m e d to be . . . brought ag a i nst the Unite d State s . . . unle ss a nd until the distric t c ourt de te rm ine s tha t the fe de ra l offic e r origina lly nam e d a s de fe nda

nt wa s a c t ing outside

the sc ope of his e m

ploy m e nt.” Osborn v . Hale y , 549 U.S. 225, 252 (2007). We thus c onc lude the distric t c ourt did not err by de c i ding the“ c ourse and sc o pe ” issue without a jury tria l . W e a ffirm

the distric t c o urt’ s substitution of the Unite d State s a

nd dismissa l of Stoke r’ s c om pla i nt. AFFIRM E D.

5