Stenson v. Lodi Skilled Nursing Services, Inc. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Sandra Stenson, No. 2:22-cv-00222-KJM-JDP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 Vv. Lodi Skilled Nursing Services Inc., doing 15 | business as Fairmont Rehabilitation Hospital, et 6 al., Defendants. 17 18 19 Plaintiff Sandra Stenson alleges two residents in the defendants’ skilled nursing facility 20 | contracted COVID-19, leading to their premature deaths. See Compl. Jf 1-5, ECF No. 2-1. She 21 | asserts claims for elder abuse, health and safety violations, negligence, willful misconduct, and 22 | wrongful death under California law. See id. [§ 37-79. 23 The defendants removed this action from the San Joaquin County Superior Court in 24 | February of this year. See generally Not. Removal, ECF No. 1. Stenson moves to remand. See 25 | generally Mot. Remand, ECF No. 11. The defendants opposed, and the court submitted the 26 | motion without oral argument. See generally Opp’n, ECF No. 12; Min. Order, ECF No. 14. 27 A defendant may remove a matter to federal court if the district court would have had 28 | original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 1 (1987). “The removing defendant bears the burden of overcoming the ‘strong presumption 2 against removal jurisdiction.’” Hansen v. Grp. Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 3 2018) (citation omitted). “The strong presumption against removal jurisdiction” means that “the 4 court resolves all ambiguity in favor of remand to state court.” Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 5 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). 6 District courts assess removals based on federal question jurisdiction under the well- 7 pleaded complaint rule. Id. A well-pleaded complaint must present a federal question on the face 8 of the plaintiff’s complaint. Caterpillar, Inc., 482 U.S. at 398–99. Generally, a case cannot be 9 removed based on an anticipated federal defense. Id. at 399. “Notwithstanding this rule, when a 10 federal statute wholly displaces state law and provides the exclusive cause of action for a 11 plaintiff's requested relief, [the court] must ‘recharacterize a state law complaint . . . as an action 12 arising under federal law.’” Hawaii ex rel. Louie v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., 761 F.3d 1027, 13 1034 (9th Cir. 2014) (alteration in original) (quoting Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 14 64 (1987)). A federal question may therefore arise if a federal law “completely preempts” a state 15 cause of action. Franchise Tax Bd. of State of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr. for S. Cal., 16 463 U.S. 1, 24 (1983). A federal question may also arise under the “embedded federal question 17 doctrine.” Saldana v. Glenhaven Healthcare LLC, 27 F.4th 679, 688 (9th Cir. 2022). Under this 18 doctrine, “federal jurisdiction over a state law claim will lie if a federal issue is (1) necessarily 19 raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without 20 disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.” Id. (quoting Gunn v. Minton, 21 568 U.S. 251, 258 (2013)); see also Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 22 545 U.S. 308, 314 (2005). 23 The defendants advance three theories of this court’s jurisdiction. First, they argue 24 Stenson’s state-law claims arise under federal law because the Public Readiness and Emergency 25 Preparedness (PREP) Act completely preempts her state law claims. See Not. Removal at 5–28 26 (citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 247d-6d, 247d-6e); Opp’n at 6–12 (same). Second, the defendants argue this 27 action involves an embedded federal issue under Gunn and Grable. See Not. Removal at 28–30; 1 Opp’n at 13. Third, the defendants argue this court has jurisdiction under the federal officer 2 removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). See Not. Removal at 31–49; Opp’n at 14–20. 3 The Ninth Circuit and several other federal appellate courts have rejected these and other 4 similar arguments. See generally Saldana, 27 F.4th 679 (affirming remand of claims by relatives 5 of a nursing home resident who allegedly died due to complications of COVID-19; rejecting 6 nursing home’s jurisdictional arguments based on the PREP Act, the federal officer removal 7 statute, and an embedded federal question); see also, e.g., Mitchell v. Advanced HCS, L.L.C., 8 28 F.4th 580 (5th Cir. 2022); Buljic v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 22 F.4th 730 (8th Cir. 2021); Maglioli 9 v. All. HC Holdings LLC, 16 F.4th 393 (3d Cir. 2021). The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Saldana is 10 binding, and the other circuit courts’ decisions referenced above reinforce the conclusion that this 11 action cannot be maintained in a federal court. The defendants do not acknowledge these 12 decisions, let alone explain why they are neither binding nor persuasive. 13 The motion to remand (ECF No. 11) is granted. This action is remanded to the 14 California Superior Court for San Joaquin County. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 DATED: May 20, 2022.