Shiree Seeds; Carol Pavian; John Seeds v. Era Alaska, a partnership of ERA Aviation, Inc., Frontier Flying Service, Inc.,…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHIREE SEEDS; CAROL PAVIAN;
JOHN SEEDS,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
ERA ALASKA, a partnership of ERA
Aviation, Inc., Frontier Flying Service,
Inc., Hageland Aviation Services, Inc.;
NICHOLAS L. STONE,
Defendants,
v.
HAGELAND AVIATION SERVICES,
INC.,
Defendant-third-party-
plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF ALASKA, Department of
Transportation,
Third-party-defendant.
No. 13-36113
D.C. No. 4:13-cv-00023-RRB
MEMORANDUM*
FILED
JUN 11 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Ralph R. Beistline, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 12, 2015
Anchorage, Alaska
Before: CANBY, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Hageland Aviation Services, Inc. appeals the district court’s decision
remanding the case to state court for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. A
district court’s remand order is reviewable on appeal only if the case “was removed
pursuant to [28 U.S.C.] section 1442 or 1443.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). Here,
however, the notice of removal sought removal of the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1441.
Although Hageland’s opposition to the motion to remand did raise federal officer
removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) as an additional ground for
removal, its attempt to do so was untimely because more than 30 days had passed
since Hageland was served with the complaint. See ARCO Envtl. Remediation,
L.L.C. v. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Quality, 213 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2000)
(“The Notice of Removal ‘cannot be amended to add a separate basis for removal
jurisdiction after [28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)’s] thirty day period.’” (quoting O’Halloran
2

-- 2 of 3 --

v. Univ. of Wash., 856 F.2d 1375, 1381 (9th Cir. 1988)). Accordingly, the appeal
is
DISMISSED.1
1 Appellees’ Motion for Judicial Notice of Jurisdictional Fact, filed July 17,
2014, is DENIED AS MOOT.
3

-- 3 of 3 --