516 F.Supp.3d 1251
D. Kan.2021Background
- Nathan Goldblatt entered Brighton Gardens for post‑surgery rehab in late March 2020 and was placed with a roommate showing COVID‑19 symptoms; the facility experienced a COVID outbreak and Goldblatt later tested positive after being returned to the hospital.
- Goldblatt sued in Johnson County, Kansas (Aug. 24, 2020), asserting numerous state‑law negligence claims: failure to warn, failure to test/isolate, inadequate PPE/training, improper staffing/controls, and related supervisory and documentation failures.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court asserting the PREP Act completely preempts state claims and thus creates federal‑question jurisdiction and PREP Act immunity.
- The central legal question was whether Goldblatt’s state claims fall within the PREP Act’s federal remedial scheme (so as to trigger complete preemption and removal).
- The court concluded the complaint alleges inaction (failures to prevent/use countermeasures) without alleging the required causal nexus to the administration or use of a covered countermeasure, so PREP Act complete preemption does not apply.
- The court granted remand to state court, remanded defendants’ declaratory‑judgment counterclaim, denied a jurisdictional hearing, and dismissed the pending Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Goldblatt's Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PREP Act completely preempts Goldblatt’s state negligence claims, creating federal‑question jurisdiction | PREP Act does not apply; claims allege facility inaction and lack the required causal link to the administration/use of a covered countermeasure | PREP Act displaces state tort law because allegations concern PPE, infection control, testing and allocation decisions that qualify as administration/use of covered countermeasures | Denied — complete preemption not shown; plaintiff’s claims do not fall within PREP Act remedies and removal under §1441 was improper |
| Whether allegations of non‑use/inaction (failure to provide countermeasures) fall within the PREP Act’s compensation/immunity framework | Inaction claims are outside PREP Act because statute targets administration/use, not mere nonfeasance | The Secretary’s Dec. 3, 2020 Amendment allows some inaction claims (e.g., prioritized allocation) to be covered; defendants say facts fit that scope | Held that limited HHS guidance does not rescue defendants: only certain inaction tied causally to an administration elsewhere is covered; complaint lacks those facts |
| Whether defendants’ declaratory‑judgment counterclaim creates independent federal jurisdiction | No — the underlying complaint supplies no federal claim; declaratory relief cannot create jurisdiction | Counterclaim invokes PREP Act and asks the court to declare immunity under federal law, so federal jurisdiction exists | Denied — counterclaim does not supply §1331 jurisdiction because PREP Act issue would be only a defense to state law claims; remanded with main action |
| Whether an embedded/substantial federal question (Grable) supports federal jurisdiction | N/A (Goldblatt argues no) | Defendants argue an embedded federal question about PREP Act immunity is substantial and necessary | Rejected — alleged federal issues are defensive and not necessarily raised; no substantial federal question to sustain jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200 (describing the well‑pleaded complaint rule for federal‑question jurisdiction)
- Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1 (explaining complete preemption as an exception to the well‑pleaded complaint rule)
- Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 (establishing that federal question must appear on the face of the complaint)
- Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr., 463 U.S. 1 (complete preemption replaces state cause of action with federal one)
- Devon Energy Prod. Co. v. Mosaic Potash Carlsbad, Inc., 693 F.3d 1195 (10th Cir.) (guidance on complete‑preemption analysis and congressional intent)
- Dutcher v. Matheson, 733 F.3d 980 (10th Cir.) (noting complete preemption is rare)
- Schmeling v. NORDAM, 97 F.3d 1336 (10th Cir.) (complete preemption framework)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (a defendant cannot base removal on facts outside the complaint)
- Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (limits on the substantial‑federal‑question doctrine)
- Cardtoons, L.C. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass’n, 95 F.3d 959 (10th Cir.) (declaratory judgment cannot create federal jurisdiction when federal issue is only defensive)
- Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U.S. 667 (Declaratory Judgment Act does not itself confer federal jurisdiction)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- Lazorko v. Pa. Hosp., 237 F.3d 242 (3d Cir.) (when original federal jurisdiction is lacking the entire removed case, including counterclaims properly part of the case, must be remanded)