Estate of Joseph Maglioli v. Alliance HC Holdings, LLC
16 F.4th 393
| 3rd Cir. | 2021Background
- Plaintiffs are estates of four nursing-home residents who died of COVID-19; they sued two New Jersey nursing homes for negligence and wrongful death in state court.
- Defendants (nursing homes and individual operators) removed to federal court, invoking federal-officer removal (28 U.S.C. § 1442), PREP Act complete preemption, and a substantial federal issue under federal-question jurisdiction.
- The PREP Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 247d-6d, -6e) authorizes the HHS Secretary to declare covered countermeasures and grants broad immunity to covered persons, while creating an exclusive federal cause of action for willful misconduct and an administrative compensation fund.
- The District Court dismissed/remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Defendants appealed.
- The Third Circuit declined to defer to HHS interpretations about federal jurisdiction and affirmed remand, holding defendants failed to establish federal-officer removal, complete preemption, or a Grable substantial federal issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chevron/Skidmore deference to HHS PREP Act jurisdictional interpretations | HHS lacks authority to define federal-court jurisdiction; no deference | HHS declarations and advisory opinions interpret PREP Act and support federal jurisdiction; should get Chevron or Skidmore deference | No deference. Agency lacks power to determine scope of federal courts; Chevron/Skidmore inapplicable. |
| Federal-officer removal (§ 1442): were the nursing homes "acting under" federal officers? | Estates: defendants are private, regulated entities not deputized by federal government | Nursing homes: heavy federal guidance/regulation (CMS/CDC) and designation as critical infrastructure shows they acted under federal authority | Not "acting under." Mere regulation/guidance (even detailed) insufficient; defendants did not assist/execute federal duties. |
| Complete preemption under PREP Act | Estates: claims are ordinary state-law negligence; PREP Act does not convert them into federal willful-misconduct claims | Nursing homes: PREP Act provides exclusive federal remedy (willful-misconduct cause and compensation fund), so state claims are completely preempted and removable | PREP Act creates exclusive federal cause for willful misconduct, but estates alleged negligence (not willful misconduct); compensation fund does not effect complete preemption of these negligence claims. |
| Substantial federal issue (Grable): does PREP Act immunity create federal-question jurisdiction? | Estates: negligence claims do not necessarily raise a federal issue; PREP Act is a defense | Nursing homes: PREP Act immunity raises a substantial, disputed federal issue warranting federal jurisdiction | Fails Grable. PREP Act preemption is a defense and not necessarily raised by the well-pleaded complaint; no federal-question jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. 211 (2011) (federalism principles)
- Watson v. Philip Morris Cos., 551 U.S. 142 (2007) ("acting under" requires assisting federal duties; regulation alone insufficient)
- Adams Fruit Co. v. Barrett, 494 U.S. 638 (1990) (agency cannot define scope of judicial power)
- Smith v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1765 (2019) (jurisdictional scope is for courts, not agencies)
- Papp v. Fore-Kast Sales Co., 842 F.3d 805 (3d Cir. 2016) (elements for § 1442 removal)
- In re Commonwealth’s Motion to Appoint Couns. Against or Directed to Def. Ass’n of Phila., 790 F.3d 457 (3d Cir. 2015) (example of private entity acting under federal delegation)
- Grable & Sons Metal Prods. v. Darue Eng’g. & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005) (test for when state claims present substantial federal issues)
- Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (2013) (articulation of Grable/"significant federal issue" test)
- Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58 (1987) (complete preemption doctrine)
- Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1 (2003) (complete preemption requires exclusive federal cause and remedies)
- Avco Corp. v. Aero Lodge No. 735, 390 U.S. 557 (1968) (LMRA complete preemption example)
- Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200 (2004) (whether state claims could have been brought under federal cause)
- In re Kaiser Aluminum Corp., 456 F.3d 328 (3d Cir. 2006) (no Chevron deference where agency attempts todefine courts' jurisdiction)
- DiFelice v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, 346 F.3d 442 (3d Cir. 2003) (limits of complete preemption analysis)