Case 8:16-cv-03471-MSS-MAP Document 30 Filed 02/10/17 Page 1 of 20 PageID 365

UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT
OF FLORIDA TAMPA
DIVISION
ZIECHA NORWILLO, as Surviving
Spouse and as Personal Representative
of the Estate of Francis Norwillo and
MICHAEL DOUGHERTY,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 8:16-cv-3471-T-35MAP

PURPLE SHOVEL, LLC,
SKYBRIDGE TACTICAL, LLC,
SKYBRIDGE RESOURCES, LLC,
REGULUS GLOBAL LLC, and
REGULUS GLOBAL INC.,
Defendants.

DEFENDANT, SKYBRIDGE TACTICAL, LLC’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REMAND AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF
LAW
Defendant, Skybridge Tactical, LLC (hereinafter referred to as “Skybridge Tactical” or
“Defendant”), hereby files their Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand and
Incorporated Memorandum of Law. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand should be denied because
Skybridge Tactical has established that removal is appropriate under the principles of Federal
Preemption, 28 U.S.C. § 1442 (the federal officer removal statute) and 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (federal
question jurisdiction).
First, the Defense Base Act (“DBA”) provides the exclusive remedy for the deaths and
injuries alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint and preempts Plaintiffs’ claims. Second, federal officer
removal jurisdiction is present in this case because Skybridge Tactical’s actions related to

 Case 8:16-cv-03471-MSS-MAP Document 30 Filed 02/10/17 Page 2 of 20 PageID 366

“Operation Inherent Resolve”, a mission to equip and train Syrian rebels in their ongoing military
conflict with the Islamic Militant State. This is the backdrop of Plaintiffs’ claims. At all times,
Skybridge Tactical was under the direct and detailed control of federal officers. All of Skybridge
Tactical’s activities related to Operation Inherent Resolve were performed under the direct and
detailed control of officers of the United States military pursuant to the terms of Purple Shovel,
LLC’s (“Purple Shovel”) contract with the United States military, as well as applicable regulations,
directives, and orders governing Skybridge Tactical’s conduct. Skybridge Tactical, as a
subcontractor of Purple Shovel was bound by Purple Shovel’s Contract with the United States
Military.
Third, removal is also appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 because this action falls within
the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. In sum, this action challenges conduct that necessarily
turns on the construction of federal law and protocols that were directed and controlled by federal
officials. It is a federal case in all aspects and should be heard by a federal court.
NATURE AND STAGE OF PROCEEDING
Plaintiffs brought their claims in state court by filing a Complaint on or about October 26,
2016 in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough County, Florida,
captioned Norwillo, et al. v. Purple Shovel, LLC, et al., Case No. 16-CA-009933. Plaintiffs’ Complaint
was served on Skybridge Tactical on November 22, 2016, On December 22, 2016, Defendant
timely filed a Notice of Removal that removed the action to this Court. 1
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
I. Whether Plaintiffs’ claims raise unique federal interests preempting them by federal law?

1

Defendants Purple Shovel, LLC and Skybridge Resources, LLC’s written consents to removal are attached hereto
as Exhibit 1. As Defendants Regulus Global, LLC and Regulus Global, Inc. had not been served at the time of the
Notice of Removal, it did not need to join in or consent to the removal. See Getty Oil Corp. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am.,
841 F.2d 1254, 1263 (5th Cir. 1988).

 Case 8:16-cv-03471-MSS-MAP Document 30 Filed 02/10/17 Page 3 of 20 PageID 367

II. Whether this action presents claims against Skybridge Tactical acting under officers of the
United States government thereby supporting Skybridge Tactical’s removal to this Court under the
federal officer removal statute (28 U.S.C. § 1442)?
III. Whether this action presents claims whose adjudication will require this Court to resolve
substantial disputed questions of federal law, thereby supporting removal to this Court under
federal question jurisdiction removal (28 U.S.C. § 1441)?
RELEVANT FACTS
On September 17, 2014, the United States House of Representatives approved funding and
authority for the U.S. Military to train and arm Syrian rebels against Islamic state militants and on
September 18, 2014, the United States Senate approved the measure.

See Article from

www.thehill.com dated September 18, 2014 attached hereto as Exhibit “2”.
On September 19, 2014, President Obama signed the legislation providing the U.S Military
authority to arm and train Syrian rebels in the fight against Islamic State militants. Upon signing,
President Obama noted that “this program will be hosted outside of Syria in partnership with
neighboring countries.” See www.cbsnews.com article dated September 19, 2014 attached hereto
as Exhibit “3”.
In October of 2014 U.S. Central Command (“CENTCOM”) named the mission “Operation
Inherent Resolve”. A press release was issued stating the following:
“According to CENTCOM officials, the name INHERENT RESOLVE is intended to reflect the
unwavering resolve and deep commitment of the U.S. and partner nations in the region and around
the globe to eliminate the terrorist group ISIL and the threat they pose to Iraq, the region and the
wider international community. It also symbolizes the willingness and dedication of coalition
members to work closely with our friends in the region and apply all available dimensions of
national power necessary—diplomatic, informational, military, economic—to degrade and
ultimately destroy ISIL.” See Press Release by CENCOM attached hereto as Exhibit “4”.

 Case 8:16-cv-03471-MSS-MAP Document 30 Filed 02/10/17 Page 4 of 20 PageID 368

In furtherance of Operation Inherent Resolve, Purple Shovel, a private contractor in the
business of among other things of acquiring foreign munitions and weapons sought to provide that
service to the United States Government. In furtherance of their bidding for services, Purple Shovel
would be looking to various sub-contractors. Regulus Global, LLC (“Regulus”) would serve in the
capacity of primary sub-contractor for procurement of the munitions and weapons and Skybridge
Tactical would serve as the primary subcontractor providing training on the use and maintenance
of some of the munitions and weapons. See Declaration of Stephen Rumbley attached hereto as
Exhibit “5”.
The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) is the principal set of rules in the Federal
Acquisition Regulations System, which governs the acquisition process by which the U.S.
Government acquires goods and services by contract with appropriated funds. The FAR system
is codified in Title 48, Chapter 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) is a supplement to FAR that provides the U.S.
Department of Defense (DOD) specific acquisition regulations that DOD government acquisition
officials and those contractors doing business with DOD must follow in the procurement process
for goods and services. See Exhibit “5” and the United States Code of Federal Regulations.
48 CFR § 252.225-7040 provides regulations relating to contractor personnel supporting
the U.S. Armed Forces Deployed Outside the United States. See Exhibit “5” and the United States
Code of Federal Regulations.
Purple Shovel’s initial bid was to solely provide foreign munitions and weapons for the
mission in 2014. United States Special Operations Command (“USSOCOM”) Contracting Officer
Kelly Vanett (“Vanett”) acknowledged having evaluated Purple Shovels’ bid in December of
2014. See Exhibit “5”.

 Case 8:16-cv-03471-MSS-MAP Document 30 Filed 02/10/17 Page 5 of 20 PageID 369

An agreement to retain Purple Shovel to provide foreign munitions and weapons was
ultimately memorialized in a solicitation, offer and award, contact no. H92222-15-C-0071. See
Exhibit “5”.
Purple Shovel, with the direct knowledge of the USSOCCOM solicited, procured and
obtained foreign munitions and weapons from a company located in Bulgaria. It was issued by
Vanett; with specific language that federal government officials would be inspecting and accepting
the munitions at the Bulgarian manufacturer. See Exhibit “5”.
As part of an expansion to the initially award Prime Contract to Purple Shovel to procure
the munitions and weapons systems; Purple Shovel was requested to provide training for said
munitions and weapons systems in which such time SkyBridge Tactical was asked to bid and
provide the subject matter experts to support said training with OEM certification as part of the
bid and ultimately the award as an additional Task Order. See Exhibit “5”.
Vanett had specifically changed the Statement of Work document submitted by Purple
Shovel pre-award of the training task order to include among other things, the following language:
“The contractor shall be required to prepare for deployment including but not limited to:
Training at OEM facility:
•

2 weeks at “K” Missile Systems and SPG9 Manufacturer, Bulgaria” See Exhibit

“5”.
SkyBridge Tactical, nor any of their representatives had any role whatsoever in the
soliciting, procurement, obtaining or inspection of foreign munitions or weapons at any time. See
Exhibit “5”.
In fact, SkyBridge Tactical, nor any of their representatives possess the requisite
certifications, licenses or ability to purchase foreign munitions or weapons under U.S. law.
Further, that is not part of their business offering or model, as such they have never procured
foreign weapons or munitions during their entire nine-year history. See Exhibit “5”.

 Case 8:16-cv-03471-MSS-MAP Document 30 Filed 02/10/17 Page 6 of 20 PageID 370

The business of and types of procurement of foreign munition and weapons is also
governed by the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and highly regulated through the International
Traffic in Arms Regulations, which require very specific accreditations. These regulations are
contained in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 15 Chapter VII, subchapter C. See Exhibit
“5” and the United States Code of Federal Regulations.
Part of the bidding or Request for Proposal (RFP) process requires a vendor to possess the
requested documents/licenses/certifications that they are even permitted to provide the applicable
services. Further as part of the SOCOM acquisition proposal process, Purple Shovel was evaluated
on their resident knowledge, experience and specific “Past Performance” related to providing the
foreign weapons and munition procurements. See Exhibit “5”.
SkyBridge Tactical does not possess any of the requisite accreditations and does not engage
in the business of acquiring foreign munitions and weapons. SkyBridge Tactical provides subject
matter experts, (“SME’S”) which was the service provided to Purple Shovel and the U.S.
Government in support of the Syrian Train & Equip mission. See Exhibit “5”.
In April of 2015, Purple Shovel had prepared a proposal to Vanett to provide training
services to Special Operations Forces In-Theater for the “K” Missile Systems and SPG9 Weapons
Systems. Vanett provided her input into several provisions of the proposal made by Purple Shovel.
See Exhibit “5”.
On May 20, 2015, SkyBridge Tactical was notified of the training award by Purple Shovel
and entered into an agreement with Purple Shovel to provide foreign weapon experts in which to
conduct training to USSOCOM trainers and maintainers to operationally prepare and to use the
SPG-9 Weapon System and Konkurs Weapons System as well as to perform the necessary
maintenance, troubleshooting and calibration of both weapons systems as needed. See Exhibit
“5”.

 Case 8:16-cv-03471-MSS-MAP Document 30 Filed 02/10/17 Page 7 of 20 PageID 371

It was understood by all parties concerned that the contract was awarded to Purple Shovel
under an “Urgent and Compiling Need” with a very tight timeline to procure and have trainers
available in theater to support the Syrian train and equip effort. See Exhibit “5”.
Norwillo and Dougherty were employees of Skybridge Tactical and were among the
subject matter experts provided from Skybridge Tactical to Purple Shovel in conjunction with this
agreement. See Exhibit “5”.
On May 28, 2015, Letters of Authorization for Norwillo and Dougherty were approved by
the Contracting Officer for USSOCOM. The purpose of said authorizations was for training of
foreign munitions and respective weapons systems for Operation Inherent Resolve. See Exhibit
“5”. The Letters of Authorizations issued by USSOCOM Officer for Norwillo and Dougherty
specifically outlined the timeline and schedule for the mission which was strictly adhered to.
Further, with specific guidance and mandate for both Norwillo and Dougherty to become Original
Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) certified; which is standard practice with New Equipment
Training (NET). All of the pre-coordination for OEM support was conducted by Purple Shovel
and Regulus to have the VMZ facility certify Skybridge Tactical trainers at a Bulgarian
Government range facility in Bulgaria. See Exhibit “5”.
Before traveling to Bulgaria, Regulus representatives advised Skybridge Tactical that they
had coordinated with the Bulgarian Minister of Foreign Affairs and they had all the necessary
passports, and that the VMZ range had been booked for training. Skybridge Tactical was advised
that there would be access to SPG9 and RPG variants at the VMZ range, but that the KONKURS
weapons system would not be available. See Exhibit “5”.
Before arriving in Bulgaria, representatives of Regulus had advised Dougherty that upon
arriving there, training would commence in a simulator for a full day before heading to the VMZ
facility to do a couple of days in SPG9/RPG7 training before leaving for Jordan. See Exhibit “5”.

 Case 8:16-cv-03471-MSS-MAP Document 30 Filed 02/10/17 Page 8 of 20 PageID 372

OEM directed training with Bulgarian certifying experts were on hand and certifying
training and Program of Instruction (POI) development began as planned and as scheduled.
On June 6, 2015, Norwillo as a result of injuries sustained from his handling of a rocketpropelled grenade at a weapons range in Bulgaria located near the village of Anevo that suddenly
exploded. When the grenade exploded, Dougherty who was standing next to Norwillo suffered
injuries. Additional members from the Bulgarian armed forces along with experts from VMZ were
injured (VMZ is a Bulgarian State and Private Industry run manufacturer with specific range
facilities for these particular munitions and weapon systems.
At all relevant times, Norwillo and Dougherty were acting in their capacity as employees
for Skybridge Tactical while deployed in Bulgaria supporting the U.S. Government. Their work
was conducted pursuant a prime contract awarded to Purple Shovel from the U.S. Government
wherein Skybridge Tactical was hired as a subcontractor with specific instructions to provide the
foreign weapons subject matter experts in support of Operation Inherent Resolve. See Exhibit “5”.
Prior to the incident that ultimately killed Norwillo and injured Dougherty, the munitions
and/or weapon systems had been inspected by the United States Government through Special
Operations Forces and Acquisition Technology and Logistics (SOFAT&L). See Exhibit “5”.
Also, post-accident on November 17, 2015 SkyBridge Tactical’s President and Director of
Operations participated in a Congressional Inquiry into the Syrian T&E effort via teleconference
led by from the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”). The following were government
participants on the call:
GAO Participants:
Judy McCloskey, Assistant Director, IAT:
Heather Salinas, Analyst-in=Charge, IAT:
Candice Wright, Assistant Director, ASM:
Caryn Kuebler, Senior Analyst, ASM:
Teakoe Coleman, Analyst, ASM:
Owen Starlin, Analyst, IAT:

 Case 8:16-cv-03471-MSS-MAP Document 30 Filed 02/10/17 Page 9 of 20 PageID 373

Ashley Alley, Office of General Council (Telephone): See Exhibit “5”.
At the time the subject incident occurred, Skybridge Tactical participated in the DBA
federal workers’ compensation program, having secured a DBA Insurance Policy through AIG
that provided the required compensation coverage for Norwillo’s death and Dougherty’s injuries.
See Exhibit “5”.
Plaintiff, Zeicha Norwillo has filed a claim under the DBA as a result of the death of
Norwillo, with the Department of Labor, Office of Workers Compensation under Case No. 08305254 and Dougherty has filed one under Case No. 06-308321 as a result of his injuries. Both
cases are open and pending.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand should be denied for three reasons. First, the Defense Base
Act provides the exclusive remedy for the deaths and injuries alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint and
preempts Plaintiffs’ claims. Second, federal officer removal jurisdiction is appropriate under 28
U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) because Skybridge Tactical was acting under the direct and detailed control
of federal officers with respect to the very conduct that is at issue in this case.
Third, removal is also appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 because this action falls
within the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. This case arises under the laws and Constitution
of the United States and involves uniquely federal interests. Although Plaintiffs’ assert only state
law causes of action, substantial disputed questions of federal law and regulations are inextricably
intertwined with those claims. To adjudicate Plaintiffs’ claims, this Court will have to interpret a
myriad of federal laws, regulations, directives, and orders governing the events and circumstance
that lead to the subject incident and determine their effect on Plaintiffs’ state tort law claims. As
such, because adjudication of Plaintiffs’ claims will require the Court to resolve substantial
predicate questions of federal law, federal question jurisdiction is proper.

 Case 8:16-cv-03471-MSS-MAP Document 30 Filed 02/10/17 Page 10 of 20 PageID 374

ARGUMENT
THE DEFENSE BASE ACT PROVIDES THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY AND PREEMPTS
PLAINTFFS’ CLAIMS
In determining whether a federal statute preempts state law claims, the proper inquiry is
“whether Congress intended the federal cause of action to be the [the] exclusive” cause of action
for the type of claim brought by the Plaintiff. Beneficial National Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1,
9 (2003). The issue is not, for example, whether Congress evidenced a specific intent that “the
cause of action be removable.” Id. See also Rosciszewski v. Arete Associates, Inc., 1 F. 3d 225,
231-32 (4th Cir., 1993). (“The Supreme Court gives great weight to the intent of Congress’
resolving whether the complete preemption doctrine applies.”) (quoting 13B Charles Alan Wright
& Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3566 (Supp. 1993).
The Defense Base Act is a general reference statute that extends workers’ compensation
coverage under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 901, et seq.
(“LHWCA”), to “employees of American contractors engaged in construction related to military
bases in foreign countries, and to foreign projects related to the national defense whether or not
the project is located on a military base.” Fisher v. Halliburton, 667 F.3d 602, 609 (5th Cir. 2012),
quoting AFIA/CIGNA Worldwide v. Felkner, 930 F.2d 1111, 1112 (5th Cir. 1991). The DBA
extends the provisions of the LHWCA "to the injury or death of any employee engaged in any
employment . . . under a contract entered into with the United States . . . where such contract is to
be performed outside the continental United States. . .." 42 U.S.C. § 1651(a)(4). Both the DBA
and LHWCA include provisions that limit an employer's liability to the remedies provided in those
statues:
The liability of an employer, contractor (or any subcontractor or subordinate
subcontractor with respect to the contract of such contractor) under this chapter
shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer, contractor,
subcontractor, or subordinate contractor to his employees (and their

 Case 8:16-cv-03471-MSS-MAP Document 30 Filed 02/10/17 Page 11 of 20 PageID 375

dependents) coming within the purview of this chapter, under the workmen's
compensation law of any State, Territory, or other jurisdiction, irrespective of
the place where the contract of hire of any such employee may have been made
or entered into.
42 U.S.C. § 1651(c); 33 U.S.C. § 905(a). When considered together with § 905(a) of the LHWCA,
it is clear that these federal workers’ compensation schemes are the sole remedy available for
covered injuries and deaths. “The DBA, like the LHWCA, includes a provision making an
employer’s liability under the workers’ compensation scheme exclusive.” Fisher v. Halliburton,
667 F. 3d at 610. Here, Norwillo and Dougherty were employees of Skybridge Tactical, a
subcontractor to Purple Shovel, who was acting under a contract with the United States Military
in Bulgaria at the time of the subject incident. See Exhibit “5”.
A compensation award under the DBA is exclusively committed to the Federal Executive
Branch. 33 U.S.C. § 919. Appeal of any such award is committed exclusively to the Federal
Benefits Review Board, 33 U.S.C. § 921(b), and is reviewable only in a United States Court of
Appeals. Id. § 921(c). Federal District Courts have exclusive jurisdiction to hear proceedings
either to: (a) compel enforcement of a Compensation Order, id. At §921(d); or (b) enjoin a
compensation order made pursuant to the DBA. 42 U.S.C. § 1653(b). Therefore, because the
DBA “provides the exclusive cause of action for the claim asserted and also set[s] forth procedures
and remedies governing that cause of action, Beneficial Nat’l Bank, 539 U.S. at 8, it completely
preempts common law causes of action that stem from the circumstances presented in the
Complaint.
A. The Legislative History of the DBA and the LHWCA Further Illustrates
Congressional Intent that the DBA Completely Preempts State Claims
When the United States Senate was in the process of passing the LHWCA, it recognized
that it needed to “enact a uniform compensation statute.” S. Rep. No. 69-973, at 16 (1926).
Congress subsequently amended the LHWCA to prevent “the courts [from] seriously undermining

 Case 8:16-cv-03471-MSS-MAP Document 30 Filed 02/10/17 Page 12 of 20 PageID 376

one of the cornerstones of worker’s compensation law- that it should be an exclusive remedy
against employers for work-related injuries and death.” S. Rep. No. 98-81, at 19 (1983) (emphasis
added). To accomplish the ends of uniformity, standardization and orderliness and to limit
“chaotic and unfair compensation situations,” Id., it is axiomatic that all proceedings relating to
the DBA be committed to federal jurisdiction. See Davila-Perez v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 202
F.3d 464, 468 (1st Cir. 2000). Complete preemption occurs if “Congress intended [the DBA] to
provide the exclusive cause of action for [injury and death] claims against [employers]” Beneficial
Nat’l Bank, 539 U.S. at 9 & n.5; accord Rosciszewski, 1 F. 3d at 232) examining the Act’s
preemptive force and exclusive jurisdiction over actions arising under the Act. As it is clear that
the subject matter involves uniquely federal interests, it is respectfully submitted that the state law
claims made here have been completely preempted by federal law.
REMOVAL IS PROPER UNDER THE FEDERAL OFFICER REMOVAL
STATUTE
The federal officer removal statute permits removal by the “United States or any agency
thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any
agency thereof, sued in an official or individual capacity for any act under color of such office. .
.” 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) (emphasis added) In their Motion for Remand, Plaintiffs challenge
Skybridge Tactical’s assertion that the federal officer removal statute applies for failing to establish
the factual elements required. This argument has no merit.
A. Government Contractors Providing Services to the
Government May Remove Under the Federal Officer Removal Statute
Plaintiffs raise three threshold legal challenges to Skybridge Tactical’s federal officer
removal: (1) failure to show they were acting under the direction of a federal officer;
(2) failure to show a causal nexus between the directions of a federal officer and the specific actions
that caused Plaintiffs’ injuries; and (3) Skybridge Tactical, as services government contractors,

 Case 8:16-cv-03471-MSS-MAP Document 30 Filed 02/10/17 Page 13 of 20 PageID 377

cannot avail themselves of the federal officer removal statute. None of these challenges has merit
because, under well-established case law, federal officer jurisdiction is broadly construed and
applies to government contractors providing services to the government under the direction and
control of federal officers.
1. Federal Officer Removal Is Not Limited to Federal Officers
Although government contractors may not be “federal officers” per se, that does not
preclude them from removing under the federal officer removal statute. The plain language of the
federal officer removal statute states that “any person acting under [a federal] officer” can remove
under the statute. 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). Numerous federal courts have upheld federal officer
removal by government contractors acting under the detailed direction and control of federal
officers. See, Magnin v. Teledyne Cont’l Motors, 91 F.3d 1424, 1427-28 (11th Cir. 1996);
McMahon v. Presidential Airways, Inc., 410 F. Supp. 2d 1189, 1196 (M.D. Fla. 2006). As such,
the fact that Skybridge Tactical is not a “federal officer” is of no consequence because Plaintiffs’
claims here are based on activities undertaken by Skybridge Tactical while “acting under [a
federal] officer.” 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).
2. Services Contractors May Remove Under the Federal Officer
Removal Statute
Plaintiffs next claim that federal officer removal is unavailable here because federal officer
removal typically applies to government contractors who produce products for the government —
not to government contractors like Skybridge Tactical who provided services to the government.
To the contrary, many courts have found federal officer removal jurisdiction to be present in cases
involving claims against “services” government contractors. See, e.g., Magnin v. Teledyne Cont’l
Motors, 91 F.3d 1414, 1427-29 (11th Cir. 1996) (upholding federal officer removal by employee
of government contractor alleged to have committed negligence in providing aircraft inspection

 Case 8:16-cv-03471-MSS-MAP Document 30 Filed 02/10/17 Page 14 of 20 PageID 378

services under authority granted by the Federal Aviation Administration); Camacho v. Autoridad
de Teefonos de P.R., 868 F.2d 482, 486-87 (1st Cir. 1989), (affirming federal officer removal over
illegal wiretapping claims brought against telephone companies who provided electronic
surveillance services to federal law enforcement agents); McMahon v. Presidential Airways, Inc.,
410 F. Supp. 2d 1189, 1196 (M.D. Fla. 2006) (upholding federal officer removal of state wrongful
death action against government contractor providing air transportation services to the military in
Afghanistan when contractor’s plane crashed and killed three American soldiers). Simply put, the
existence of federal officer removal jurisdiction does not depend on whether the case involves
products or services and thus, the fact that Skybridge Tactical are “service” contractors has no
bearing on the existence of federal question jurisdiction here.
3. Federal Officer Removal Jurisdiction Is Construed Broadly
Although federal courts usually construe removal jurisdiction narrowly, the Supreme Court
has held that the federal officer removal statute is an exception to this rule. In Willingham v.
Morgan, the Supreme Court emphasized that the federal officer removal statute is neither “narrow”
nor “limited,” and the policy underlying the statute “should not be frustrated by a narrow, grudging
interpretation.” 395 U.S. 402, 406-07, 89 S. Ct. 1813, 1816 (1969); Moreover, the courts have
recognized that this same federal purpose applies to private parties performing the work of the
government under the direction of federal officers, and that application of a different standard to
the government’s contractors would “allow into the back door of state litigation what the
government contractor defense barred at the front door.” See Boyle v. United Techs. Corp., 487
U.S. 500, 504-06, 108 S. Ct. 2510, 2514-15 (1988).
In sum, none of Plaintiffs’ legal challenges to Skybridge Tactical’s federal officer removal
have merit or present any bar to Skybridge Tactical’s ability to remove on federal officer removal
grounds in this case.

 Case 8:16-cv-03471-MSS-MAP Document 30 Filed 02/10/17 Page 15 of 20 PageID 379

B. Skybridge Tactical Has Established All of the Factual Elements Required for
Federal Officer Removal
Contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertions, Skybridge Tactical has satisfied all of the factual
requirements for federal officer removal. Private defendants may remove state court actions to
federal courts under the federal office removal statute if they can establish that: (1) they are a
“person” within the meaning of the statute; (2) they have at least one colorable federal defense;
and (3) they acted pursuant to a federal officer’s directions and that a causal nexus exists between
defendant’s actions under color of federal office and plaintiff’s claims. McMahon, 410 F. Supp.
2d at 1196; Akin v. Big Three Indus., Inc., 851 F. Supp. 819, 822-23 (E.D. Tex. 1994). As explained
below, Skybridge Tactical has met all three requirements in this case because they were under the
direct and detailed control of United States military officers when they were performing their
training services for the military. As such, federal officer removal was proper.
1. Skybridge Tactical is a “Person” Under the Federal Officer Removal Statute
As a corporation, Skybridge Tactical qualifies as a “person” under the statute. See Winters
v. Diamond Shamrock Chem. Co., 149 F.3d 387, 398. Plaintiffs do not dispute that Skybridge
Tactical has met the “person” element for federal officer removal. Pls.’ Motion. Pg. 10.
2. Skybridge Tactical Has Asserted At Least One Colorable Federal Defense
Aside from the defense that exclusive remedies exist in the provisions of the LHWCA as
extended to the DBA for Plaintiffs’ claims and the government contractor defense discussed in
detail above, Skybridge Tactical can assert as a defense – the political question doctrine. This
defense was used by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia as the basis
for dismissal in a factually analogous case to the one against Skybridge Tactical in this case. See
Whitaker v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., No. 4:05-CV-78, 2006 WL 1876922, at *3 (M.D. Ga.
July 6, 2006) involved claims by a soldier who was killed while escorting a military supply convoy

 Case 8:16-cv-03471-MSS-MAP Document 30 Filed 02/10/17 Page 16 of 20 PageID 380

in Iraq (dismissing Plaintiffs’ state tort claims as nonjusticiable because KBRI actions with respect
to convoy were performed “subject to the military’s orders and regulations” in order “to achieve
military objectives in a wartime convoy operation that was planned and executed by the military”
and would therefore require the court to question the military’s strategic and tactical- 14decisions
in a combat zone). Here, Skybridge Tactical was subject to military contracts, regulations,
protocols in aiding Operation Inherent Resolve, a mission to equip and train Syrian rebels in the
fight against the Islamic State Militants. These defenses establish the applicability of federal
officer removal.
3. Plaintiffs’ Alleged Harms Were Caused By Skybridge Tactical’s Activities
Undertaken Under the Direct and Detailed Control of the Military
Skybridge Tactical satisfies the final prong of the federal officer removal test by
demonstrating that their actions at issue were undertaken under the direct and detailed control of
federal officers, and a causal nexus exists between those actions and Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries.
See Winters, 149 F.3d at 398-99. As explained below, the provisions of the contract under which
Skybridge Tactical provided the services at issue, the numerous federal statutes and regulations,
military regulations, protocols, directives and overall control by the military illustrates the direct
and detailed control the United States Government had over Skybridge Tactical.
a. Skybridge Tactical’s Services At Issue Were Performed Under
the Direct and Detailed Control of Military Officials
There is ample support demonstrating that all of Skybridge Tactical’s activities regarding
the training services were performed under the detailed direction and control of federal officers,
namely the Secretaries of the Armed Services or their delegees, including military contracting
officers.
The authority for the mission itself was specifically provided for by President Obama after
it passed by Congress. Purple Shovel had to bid their services to USSOCOM who actually assisted

 Case 8:16-cv-03471-MSS-MAP Document 30 Filed 02/10/17 Page 17 of 20 PageID 381

in the language of the bid and the statement of work, including the type of training that was entailed
and the locations, one of which was Bulgaria where the subject incident occurred. Ultimately
Purple Shovel entered into a contract with the military established that the training services were
performed under the direct and detailed control of federal officers. The services Skybridge Tactical
provided with respect to the training at issue in this case were performed pursuant to Purple
Shovel’s contract with the United States Military. Both Norwillo and Dougherty were specifically
authorized by the USSOCOM. Additionally, the authorizations specifically outlined the timeline
and schedule for the mission which was strictly adhered to. The munitions and/or foreign weapons
were inspected by the Government through SOFA & AT&L. After the incident, a Congressional
Inquiry was held on November 17, 2015. The involvement of the United States Government was
overwhelming.
Overall, the above-cited Declarations, contractual provisions, regulations, and directives
provide ample support to establish that Skybridge Tactical was acting under the detailed direction
and control of the military with respect to all actions undertaken regarding the training. See Exhibit
“5”. See McMahon, 410 F. Supp. 2d at 1196-97, 1199-1200 (holding that federal officer removal
of claims against private air transportation contractor was proper because plaintiffs’ claims
challenged defendant’s operation of airplane that crashed (including the selected flight route) —
an activity defendant performed under “a significant amount of control” from military officials
under its contract to provide air transportation services to the military in Afghanistan); Hoey v.
AECOM Gov’t Servs., Inc., C.A. No. L-03-6, slip op. at 5 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 18, 2004) (Ellison, J.)
(holding that federal officer removal jurisdiction was present over state law tort claims brought by
family of employee killed while working for defendant as a security guard for a military base in
Kuwait because defendant’s contract with the Army to supply security services indicated “that the

 Case 8:16-cv-03471-MSS-MAP Document 30 Filed 02/10/17 Page 18 of 20 PageID 382

U.S. Army exercised direct and substantial control over the important aspects of [defendant’s]
operations in Kuwait.”).
b. Plaintiffs’ Complaint Alleges Harms Causally Linked to Skybridge Tactical’s Actions
Undertaken Under the Direct and Detailed Control of Military Officers
As established above, the training was controlled and directed by the officers of the United
States military. Norwillo and Dougherty’s injuries occurred as part and parcel of the training and
the United States Governments control over the process from inception. Accordingly, Skybridge
Tactical established the requisite causal nexus. See McMahon, 410 F. Supp. 2d at 1199 (finding a
causal nexus between Defendants’ operation of aircraft performed under contract with military and
the deaths of three soldiers killed in plane crash). Here, Plaintiffs’ alleged harm directly stems
from the decisions regarding the time, place, and manner of the deployment for the subject training
— decisions that were under the direct and detailed control of United States military officials.
REMOVAL IS PROPER DUE TO THE PRESENCE OF SUBSTANTIAL
FEDERAL QUESTIONS
A. Adjudication of this Case Will Require the Court to Analyze and Interpret
Federal Law
In addition to federal officer removal, removal of this case to this Court was proper
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, as this case arises under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the
United States and involves uniquely federal interests. Although Plaintiffs assert only state law
causes of action, their Complaint reveals that adjudication of the elements of those causes of action
will require this Court to resolve substantial disputed questions of federal law. The Supreme Court
has recognized that even in cases where the causes of action asserted by a plaintiff are couched
exclusively in state law terms, federal question jurisdiction exists if resolution of those state law
causes of action depend on resolution of substantial predicate questions of federal law. See Grable
& Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg, 125 S. Ct. 2363, 2367 (2005) (“a federal court

 Case 8:16-cv-03471-MSS-MAP Document 30 Filed 02/10/17 Page 19 of 20 PageID 383

ought to be able to hear claims recognized under state law that nonetheless turn on substantial
questions of federal law, and thus justify resort to the experience, solicitude, and hope of
uniformity that a federal forum offers on federal issues”); Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers
Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 9, 103 S. Ct. 2841, 2846 (1983) (holding that substantial federal
question jurisdiction exists “where the vindication of a right under state law necessarily turn[s] on
some construction of federal law.”).
In this case, substantial federal question jurisdiction exists because, an interpretation of a
myriad of federal laws, federal regulations, directives, and protocols that govern Skybridge
Tactical’s conduct at issue. As referenced in this Response, there are numerous federal statutes,
federal regulations, federal contracts and directives, that are implicated as a result of the underlying
facts that lead to the subject incident. Moreover, because Plaintiffs’ claims implicate military
conduct as well as foreign governments (Bulgaria), the political question and separation of powers
doctrines, are also implicated by Plaintiffs’ claims. The federal doctrine of state secrets may also
be applicable here, as this case may implicate military classified information. Furthermore, all of
Skybridge Tactical’s actions at issue in this case were undertaken pursuant to detailed,
comprehensive, and specific federal requirements set by the United States military that include a
host of requirements under the LOGCAP Contract as well as mandatory military regulations,
directives, and orders.
Overall, given the central role of military actions in this lawsuit, and because federal law
is inextricably intertwined with Plaintiffs’ claims in this case, removal to this Court is thus proper
due to the presence of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441 and the
Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2.

 Case 8:16-cv-03471-MSS-MAP Document 30 Filed 02/10/17 Page 20 of 20 PageID 384

CONCLUSION
For the above-stated reasons, Skybridge Tactical submits that this Court has subject matter
jurisdiction over this action and that Skybridge Tactical’s removal of this action from state court
was proper based on federal preemption, federal officer removal and substantial federal question
grounds. Accordingly, Defendant, Skybridge Tactical respectfully requests that this Court deny
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 10th day of February, 2017, a true and correct copy of
the foregoing has been filed and served via CM/ECF and/or U.S. Mail upon: C. STEVE
YERRID, ESQ. & DAVID D. DICKEY, ESQ., The Yerrid Law Firm (ddickey@yerridlaw.com)
(csullivan@yerridlaw.com), 101 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 3900 Tampa, Florida 33602;
KURT B. ARNOLD, ESQ. (karnold@arnolditkin.com), CAJ. D. BOATRIGHT, ESQ.
(cboatright@arnolditkin.com), KALA FLITTNER SELLERS, ESQ., MICAJAH DANIEL
BOATRIGHT, ESQ. & ROLAND CHRISTENSEN, ESQ., Arnold & Itkin, LLP, 6009 Memorial
Drive, Houston, Texas 77007; JUAN A. RUIZ, ESQ. & DARICK CRUMBLY, ESQ.
(jar.service@rissman.com), Rissman, Barrett, Hurt, Donahue, McLain & Manfan, P.A., 201 E.
Pine Street, Suite 1500, Orlando, Florida 32802-4940; and JOHN D. MULLEN, ESQ., Phelps
Dunbar, LLP (john.mullen@phelps.com) 100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 1900, Tampa, Florida
33602, BETH-ANN E. KRIMSKY, ESQ., LAWREN ZANN, ESQ., Greenspoon Marder, P.A.,
(beth-ann.krimsky@gmlaw.com) (lawren.zann@gmlaw.com) 200 East Broward Blvd., Suite
1800 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309.
Respectfully submitted,
SCHOUEST, BAMDAS, SOSHEA & BENMAIER, PLLC
Counsel for Defendant
SKYBRIDGE TACTICAL, LLC
750 Park of Commerce Boulevard, Suite 130
Boca Raton, FL 33487
(561) 990-1699 – Phone
(561) 283-3383 – Facsimile

/S/ Eric J. Stockel

__

ERIC J. STOCKEL, ESQUIRE
Lead Counsel
Florida Bar No 188095
E-Mail: EStockel@sbsblaw.com