Hearn v. Reynolds
876 F. Supp. 2d 798
S.D. Miss.2012Background
- Federal courts have limited jurisdiction and must assess subject-matter jurisdiction in every case.
- Removal under 28 U.S.C. 1441 is allowed only if the claims could have been brought in federal court originally.
- Hearn sued to publish documents from a sealed state-court proceeding, alleging HIPAA violations to cause emotional distress.
- Defendants removed, arguing HIPAA created a federal question; Hearn contends no federal claim exists.
- Court rejects federal-question basis: HIPAA does not create a private right of action, and Hearn’s complaint does not clearly state a HIPAA claim.
- Court remands the case to state court because no federal question is presented and removal is improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does HIPAA create a private right of action for removal | Hearn contends HIPAA can ground a federal claim. | Defendants rely on HIPAA to establish federal jurisdiction. | HIPAA creates no private right of action. |
| If no HIPAA claim exists, can Grable jurisdiction apply | Grable could provide a federal element if essential to the claim. | Grable applies only to exceptional federal-interest cases; not present here. | Grable does not create jurisdiction; no substantial federal question. |
| Is removal appropriate when the complaint references HIPAA only in passing | Complaint asserts state-law claims with possible federal ingredient. | Any federal issue would mandate removal. | No federal question stated; remand proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Acara v. Banks, 470 F.3d 569 (5th Cir. 2006) (no private HIPAA action and no federal subject matter jurisdiction)
- Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (U.S. 2005) (federal-law element essential to state-law claim; exceptionally jurisdictional)
- Gutierrez v. Flores, 543 F.3d 248 (5th Cir. 2008) (HIPAA privacy claims not a private federal cause of action)
- Singh v. Duane Morris LLP, 538 F.3d 334 (5th Cir. 2008) (HIPAA privacy claims not a private federal remedy)
- Baum v. Keystone Mercy Health Plan, 826 F. Supp. 2d 718 (E.D. Pa. 2011) (illustrates no private HIPAA action permitting removal)