Moore v. Covenant Living West ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JAMIE GONZALEZ, et al., No. 1:20-cv-01260-NONE-EPG 11 Plaintiffs, 12 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION 13 SHOULD NOT BE STAYED PENDING REDWOOD SPRINGS HEALTHCARE NINTH CIRCUIT DECISION 14 CENTER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 GARY GAGLIOLO, No. 1:20-cv-01719-NONE-SAB 18 Plaintiff, 19 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE STAYED PENDING 20 KAWEAH MANOR, INC., et al., NINTH CIRCUIT DECISION 21 Defendants. 22 MARX FORD, et al., No. 1:21-cv-00871-NONE-SAB 23 Plaintiffs, 24 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION v. SHOULD NOT BE STAYED PENDING 25 NINTH CIRCUIT DECISION REDWOOD SPRINGS HEALTHCARE 26 CENTER, et al., 27 Defendants. 28 1 MONICA STERLING, et al., No. 1:21-cv-00872-NONE-SKO 2 Plaintiffs, 3 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION 4 SHOULD NOT BE STAYED PENDING REDWOOD SPRINGS HEALTHCARE NINTH CIRCUIT DECISION 5 CENTER, et al., 6 Defendants. 7 8 JOHN MOORE, No. 1:21-cv-01303-NONE-SKO 9 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION 10 v. SHOULD NOT BE STAYED PENDING NINTH CIRCUIT DECISION 11 COVENANT LIVING WEST, 12 Defendant. 13 JOHN MOORE, No. 1:21-cv-01393-NONE-SKO 14 Plaintiff, 15 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION v. SHOULD NOT BE STAYED PENDING 16 NINTH CIRCUIT DECISION COVENANT LIVING WEST, 17 Defendant. 18 19 DALLENE ROCCARO, et al., No. 1:21-cv-01416-NONE-SAB 20 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION 21 v. SHOULD NOT BE STAYED PENDING NINTH CIRCUIT DECISION 22 COVENANT LIVING COMMUNITIES & SERVICES, 23 Defendant. 24 25 26 The above-captioned matters are state-law actions concerning nursing homes’ responses 27 to the coronavirus pandemic. They were initially filed in California state courts and were 28 subsequently removed to this U.S. District Court on the basis of federal-question jurisdiction. 1 The notice of removal in each case asserts, among other things, that the state law causes of action 2 are preempted by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 247d-6d 3 and 247d-6e (2006) (the “PREP Act”). Plaintiffs in each action have filed a motion to remand. 4 On October 21, 2021, the Ninth Circuit held oral argument in Saldana v. Glenhaven 5 Healthcare LLC, No. 20-56194. According to the opening brief, the issues presented to the Ninth 6 Circuit for review in Saldana were as follows: 7 1. Did the district court err in its interpretation and application of the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), by failing 8 to recognize that Defendants’ response to the pandemic was at the specific direction of, and to assist, the federal government, such that 9 Defendants were “acting under” a federal officer as contemplated by § 1442(a)(1) and Watson v. Philip Morris Cos., 551 U.S. 142 (2007)? 10 2. Did the district court err in its interpretation of the PREP Act’s 11 complete preemptive effect by failing to construe the various components of the PREP Act together? 12 3. Did the district court err in failing to recognize that Plaintiffs’ 13 state claims raise embedded federal issues pursuant to Grable & Sons Metal Products v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing, 545 U.S. 14 308 (2005) that compel granting federal jurisdiction because of the need for uniformity in the interpretation and enforcement of federal 15 law in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, which has affected every state in the country? 16 17 Saldana, Doc. No. 16, at 17–18. 18 The parties in the above-captioned matters have briefed similar issues. (See Gonzalez, 19 Doc. No. 16 (in opposition to motion to remand, making arguments concerning PREP Act, 20 Grable, and federal officer statute); Gagliolo, Doc. No. 21 (similar); Ford, Doc. No. 9 (similar); 21 Sterling, Doc. No. 8 (similar); Moore, No. 1:21-cv-01303-NONE-SKO, Doc. No. 15 (similar); 22 Moore, No. 1:21-cv-01393-NONE-SKO, Doc. No. 11 (similar); Roccaro, Doc. No. 1 (similar, in 23 notice of removal).) Given the pending appeal before the Ninth Circuit, it appears to the court 24 that a stay of these actions until the Ninth Circuit issues its decision in Saldana may be warranted. 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 Accordingly, within fourteen days of the date of entry of this order, the parties are ordered 2 | show cause in writing why these matters should not be stayed until the Ninth Circuit issues its 3 | decision in Saldana. Any responses to this OSC must be no longer than seven pages in length. 4 | Alternatively, the parties in each case may file a stipulation addressing the procedural situation. 5 | IT IS SO ORDERED. a 6 Li. wh F Dated: _ November 9, 2021 See 1" S98 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28