The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court's decision to remand the case of Childs v. San Diego Family Housing, LLC back to state court. This ruling, issued on September 24, 2026, affects the Childs family, who had filed a lawsuit against their military housing provider over health issues caused by mold and water intrusion. The court determined that there was no federal jurisdiction in this case.
The Childs family, including parents Donald and Lena Childs and their two minor children, rented a home at the Naval Amphibious Base Coronado in California. They alleged that the property suffered from significant mold contamination and water intrusion, which they claimed damaged their personal property and adversely affected their health. After reporting these issues to their landlords, San Diego Family Housing and Lincoln Military Property Management, the Childs filed a lawsuit in state court in 2019, asserting claims of negligence and other state law violations.
The defendants, San Diego Family Housing, a public-private partnership created by federal statute, and Lincoln Military Property Management, removed the case to federal court, arguing that federal jurisdiction existed due to the nature of their operations and the property involved. They claimed jurisdiction under federal enclave, federal agency, and federal officer statutes. However, the district court determined it lacked jurisdiction and remanded the case back to state court.
The Ninth Circuit's ruling came after the United States Supreme Court remanded the case to the appellate court for further consideration in light of a recent decision regarding federal officer removal jurisdiction. The appellate court, led by Judge Gabriel P. Sanchez, affirmed the district court's decision, stating that the Childs had not provided sufficient evidence to establish federal jurisdiction.
In its opinion, the court highlighted that the defendants failed to demonstrate that the Saipan Property was under federal enclave jurisdiction, as they could not prove that the federal government had assented to exclusive jurisdiction over the property. The court noted, "regardless of the parties’ competing versions of events as to how the Saipan Property came into the United States’ possession, the Childs did not provide any evidence that the federal government had assented to exclusive jurisdiction over it so as to establish federal enclave jurisdiction."
Additionally, the court ruled that the defendants did not meet the requirements for federal officer removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). The court explained that to qualify for this removal, the defendants must show that they were acting under a federal officer and that their actions were related to their federal duties. In this case, the court found that the defendants did not satisfy those requirements.
The ruling has significant implications for the Childs family as they continue their legal battle in state court. It also sets a precedent regarding the limits of federal jurisdiction in cases involving military housing and the responsibilities of private contractors managing such properties. The court's decision reinforces the principle that federal jurisdiction must be clearly established and cannot be assumed based on the nature of the property or the parties involved.
Looking ahead, the Childs family can continue their lawsuit in state court, where they will pursue their claims against San Diego Family Housing and Lincoln Military Property Management. Details about potential appeals or related cases were not available in the court filing.