Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey v. Chryssoula Arsenis, 24-2009

Horizon sued Chryssoula Arsenis and Speech and Language Center in New Jersey state court for fraudulent billing; parties entered a settlement and Horizon later moved to enforce it.
In 2022 Arsenis removed the enforcement action to federal court asserting § 1441 federal-question and diversity jurisdiction; the District Court remanded as untimely and lacking jurisdiction and the Third Circuit dismissed her appeal under § 1447(d).
On November 29, 2023 Arsenis filed a second removal, citing § 1441(b) and § 1443; Horizon moved to remand and for sanctions; Arsenis filed additional motions in district court.
The District Court again remanded, finding no subject-matter jurisdiction (no diversity; no federal question), held removal untimely, declined to address Arsenis’s motions to strike, and ordered Arsenis to show cause why a filing injunction should not be imposed.
Arsenis appealed; the Third Circuit determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the show-cause/injunction directive but had jurisdiction to review the remand because Arsenis invoked § 1443.
On the merits the Third Circuit affirmed remand: diversity absent, federal-question jurisdiction not present (ERISA complete-preemption did not apply), and § 1443 removal failed the two-prong test (no racial-equality basis; no formal state-law bar to enforcing federal rights).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellate court may review the District Court’s remand	Arsenis: removal cited § 1443, so remand is reviewable on appeal	Horizon: remand ordinarily unreviewable under § 1447(d)	Court: invocation of § 1443 makes remand reviewable; appellate jurisdiction exists for remand decision, but not for the show-cause order
Whether District Court had diversity jurisdiction	Arsenis: asserted diversity in prior filings	Horizon: parties are both New Jersey citizens; no complete diversity	Held: no diversity jurisdiction (both parties NJ citizens)
Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists via ERISA complete preemption	Arsenis: ERISA/constitutional/statutory federal rights preempt state claims, creating federal jurisdiction	Horizon: state complaint alleges only state-law claims; provider lacks ERISA standing; preemption inapplicable	Held: no federal-question jurisdiction; ERISA complete-preemption does not apply to healthcare provider’s claims
Whether removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 was proper	Arsenis: she alleged denial of federally protected rights (ADA) so § 1443 applies	Horizon: § 1443 narrow; Arsenis failed to show rights asserted are racial-equality based or that state courts will inevitably deny enforcement	Held: § 1443 removal improper — Arsenis failed both prongs (not racial-equality language; no showing state law/formal bar prevents enforcement)

Hudson United Bank v. LiTenda Mortg. Corp., 142 F.3d 151 (3d Cir. 1998) (recognizing § 1447(d) bar on review of remand orders)
BP P.L.C. v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., 141 S. Ct. 1532 (2021) (holding that invoking § 1443 renders remand order reviewable)
Lazorko v. Pa. Hosp., 237 F.3d 242 (3d Cir. 2000) (exercising plenary review of remand decisions)
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, 587 U.S. 435 (2019) (removal standard: original federal jurisdiction requirement)
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (well-pleaded complaint rule governs federal-question jurisdiction)
Maglioli v. All. HC Holdings LLC, 16 F.4th 393 (3d Cir. 2021) (complete preemption is rare for provider claims)
Davis v. Glanton, 107 F.3d 1044 (3d Cir. 1997) (§ 1443 is a narrow exception to removal limits)
City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808 (1966) (interpreting § 1443(2) as limited to federal officers)
Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780 (1966) (first prong of § 1443 requires rights asserted in terms of racial equality)
Erie Ins. Exch. by Stephenson v. Erie Indem. Co., 68 F.4th 815 (3d Cir. 2023) (party seeking removal bears burden of establishing federal jurisdiction)