Amy Robinson v. United States of America
Filing
19
MINUTES OF Motion Hearing held before Judge Christina A. Snyder RE: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 12 ; Defendant's Motion to Vacate Temporary Restraining Order 15 . The Court hereby GRANTS the government's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Although the Court indicated at the hearing that it was prepared to vacate the Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Los Angeles County Superior Court, upon reflection, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to do so. The government is therefore directed to move the Superior Court to vacate its Temporary Restraining Order. ( MD JS-6. Case Terminated ) Court Reporter: Laura Elias. (gk)
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 12-247 CAS (JCx)
Title
AMY ROBINSON v. UNITED STATES
Present: The Honorable
Date
JS-6
May 7, 2012
CHRISTINA A. SNYDER
CATHERINE JEANG
Deputy Clerk
Laura Elias
Court Reporter / Recorder
N/A
Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Not Present
Geoffrey Wilson, AUSA
Proceedings:
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (filed 3/12/2012)
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER (filed 4/20/12)
On August 5, 2011 plaintiff Amy Robinson filed the instant action against Debra
Williams, a case manager with the Veterans Affairs Supported Housing (“VASH”)
program, in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Robinson requested a Temporary
Restraining Order (“TRO”) enjoining alleged harassment, trespass, and vandalism. On
November 15, 2011, the Superior Court granted plaintiff’s request for a TRO. Thereafter,
on January 10, 2012, the United States government (“the government”) timely removed
the action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).1 Dkt. No. 1.
On March 12, 2011, the government filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 12. On April 5, 2012, plaintiff filed her opposition. Dkt.
No. 14. On April 20, 2012, the government filed a motion to vacate the TRO. Dkt. No.
15. On April 23, the government filed a reply to plaintiff’s opposition. Dkt. No. 16.
Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the government’s motion to vacate the TRO. The
Court held a hearing on May 7, 2012.
On April 24, 2012, this Court dismissed a similar action filed by plaintiff
apparently based on the same alleged facts. See CV No. 11-5797 CAS (JCx), Dkt. No.
1
On March 5, 2012, the United States Attorney General certified that Williams
acted within the scope of her employment at the time of the alleged conduct. The United
States therefore substituted itself for individual defendant Williams pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2679(d)(1). Dkt. No. 10.
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 12-247 CAS (JCx)
Date
Title
JS-6
May 7, 2012
AMY ROBINSON v. UNITED STATES
24. The Court explained that plaintiff’s claims were barred by the doctrine of sovereign
immunity due to the Attorney General’s unchallenged certification that plaintiff’s
allegations arose out of conduct undertaken by a federal employee in her official
capacity. The Court also directed plaintiff to explain how that case differed from this
action, and why this action should not be dismissed for the same reasons. Id. at n. 4.
Plaintiff did not respond and failed to appear at the hearing in this matter.
Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS the government’s motion to dismiss for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Although the Court indicated at the hearing that it was
prepared to vacate the Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Los Angeles County
Superior Court, upon reflection, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to do so. The
government is therefore directed to move the Superior Court to vacate its Temporary
Restraining Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
:
02
CMJ
Page 2 of 2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
