Aoun v. Sayed
2:25-cv-10685
| E.D. Mich. | Aug 27, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Hassan Aoun filed a complaint in Wayne County Circuit Court against Ali Sayed, Hype Athletics, and Safe House Rehabilitation Center alleging defamation, false light, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and a HIPAA violation.
- Sayed allegedly discussed details about addiction and referenced Aoun on a podcast, including personal events and substance abuse history, without Aoun's consent.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court, relying solely on the HIPAA claim as the federal question giving the court jurisdiction.
- Both sides later agreed HIPAA does not grant a private right of action and could not provide a basis for federal jurisdiction.
- Aoun moved to remand the case to state court, and Defendants sought to dismiss all claims.
- Aoun also requested sanctions and reimbursement for expenses related to the improper removal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal question jurisdiction exists due to the HIPAA claim | HIPAA does not provide a private right of action or federal jurisdiction | Case should not be remanded; all claims should be dismissed | No federal jurisdiction under HIPAA; remand granted |
| Whether the case must be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction | All claims are based in state law; federal court lacks jurisdiction | Removal was proper initially via the HIPAA claim | Remand to state court mandated by statute |
| Whether sanctions are warranted against Defendants for improper removal | Defendants knowingly removed a non-removable case, causing unnecessary expense | No explicit argument presented on sanctions in summary | No Rule 11 sanctions, but Aoun awarded costs/fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Acara v. Banks, 470 F.3d 569 (5th Cir. 2006) (HIPAA does not create an express or implied private cause of action)
- Eastman v. Marine Mech. Corp., 438 F.3d 544 (6th Cir. 2006) (party seeking removal bears burden to establish federal jurisdiction; doubts resolved in favor of remand)
- Int’l Primate Prot. League v. Adm’rs of Tulane Educ. Fund, 500 U.S. 72 (1991) (statute requires cases lacking jurisdiction to be remanded)