2:22-cv-01207
E.D. Cal.Dec 9, 2022Background:
- Community Medical Centers (CMC), a California health provider, received FSHCAA federal funding and was deemed a Public Health Service (PHS) employee for some purposes.
- In October 2021 CMC experienced a data breach compromising patient PHI/PII; Daniel Hinds filed suit in San Joaquin County on November 11, 2021; four related suits were consolidated.
- CMC sought HHS/United States Attorney representation and substitution under 42 U.S.C. § 233; HHS and the U.S. Attorney declined, concluding the claims were not medical-malpractice FTCA claims.
- CMC removed the consolidated action to federal court on July 8, 2022 and moved to substitute the United States as defendant under § 233; the United States and Hinds opposed and moved to remand.
- The district court held it lacked statutory authority to compel the United States’ substitution under § 233 and found CMC’s removal untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) because the 30-day removal window began with Hinds’ initial November 11, 2021 pleading.
- The court denied substitution, granted remand to state court, and imposed a $500 sanction on CMC’s counsel for exceeding a five-page reply limit.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court can force substitution of the United States under 42 U.S.C. § 233 | Hinds: Court should not substitute the U.S.; § 233 does not authorize forced substitution | CMC: § 233 grants immunity to deemed PHS employees and allows substitution of the U.S. as defendant | Denied — court lacks statutory authority to compel substitution under § 233; substitution not ordered |
| Whether CMC’s removal was timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) | Hinds: Removal was untimely because 30-day removal period began with the Nov. 11, 2021 complaint | CMC: Removal was timely because it occurred within 30 days of receiving the consolidated complaint and new authority provided grounds for removal | Granted remand — removal untimely; 30-day window started with initial pleading and expired Dec. 11, 2021 |
| Whether sanctions are appropriate for exceeding page limits in reply briefs | Hinds: Enforcement of the court’s filing order and monetary sanction | CMC: No substantive dispute recorded | Sanction imposed — CMC counsel ordered to pay $500 for exceeding page limits |
Key Cases Cited
- Levin v. United States, 568 U.S. 503 (2013) (discusses statutory predecessor and limits on FTCA-style exclusive-remedy schemes)
- Sangemino v. Zuckerberg, 454 F. Supp. 206 (E.D.N.Y. 1978) (describes APA review when attorney general refuses certification under a predecessor statute)
- Proietti v. Levi, 530 F.2d 836 (9th Cir. 1976) (court reviewed a challenge to government refusal to substitute under related immunity framework)
- United States v. Alexander, 175 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) (statutory-drafting choices inform congressional intent analysis)
- Bath County v. Amy, 80 U.S. 244 (1871) (district courts are creatures of statute and have only statutory authority)
- Chan Healthcare Grp. v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 844 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2017) (interprets § 1446(b) removal timing and requirement that grounds be previously unknowable)