Walker

Walker v. Chugachmiut

Good Law
46 F. App'x 421
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 29, 2002No. 01-35726; D.C. No. CV-00-00327-JKSCalifornia1,485 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiff-Appellant Anne M. Walker appeals from the district court’s substitution of the United States as a defendant under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) 1 and dismissal of her tort claims in the action she filed against her former employer, Chugachmiut, a tribal consortium, and Robert Henrichs, a member of Chugachmiut’s board of directors.

I

Walker contends that the district court lacked removal jurisdiction over the instant action because the United States was not a party defendant at the time of removal and she “clearly chose to eschew any claims based upon federal law” in her complaint. We review de novo a district court’s decision to deny a motion to remand for want of removal jurisdiction. Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest, 861 F.2d 1389 ,1393 (9th Cir.1988).

Removal of this action was mandatory. Any civil action against a tribal organization, or one of its employees acting within the scope of employment, for tort claims resulting from the carrying out of an Indian Self-Determination and Educational Assistance Act 2 (“ISDEA”) contract “shall be deemed to be an action against the United States” under the FTCA. Department of the Interior and Related…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.