121 F.4th 149
11th Cir.2024Background
- Plaintiffs, representatives of Sara Schleider's estate, sued Defendants (GVDB Operations, LLC, and JSMGV Management Company, LLC) in Florida state court, alleging negligence and wrongful death under Florida’s Assisted Living Facilities Act, arising from Defendants’ alleged failure to prevent COVID-19 spread in their facility.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court, claiming federal jurisdiction under three grounds: federal officer removal, complete preemption by the PREP Act, and embedded federal question jurisdiction.
- The district court remanded the case, holding it lacked federal subject matter jurisdiction and ruling that Plaintiffs' claims were not completely preempted by the PREP Act nor within its scope.
- Defendants appealed, challenging the remand and insisting the federal court had jurisdiction under the asserted grounds.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s remand order de novo and affirmed, holding that none of Defendants’ asserted grounds supported federal subject matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiffs' Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal officer removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442 | Defendants are private parties, not acting under a federal officer; merely following regulation isn’t enough | Defendants were acting as program planners under federal orders as part of the COVID-19 response | Defendants are not "acting under" a federal officer; removal improper |
| Complete preemption by PREP Act | Claims are for state-law negligence, not willful misconduct under the PREP Act; no exclusive federal cause of action | PREP Act completely preempts all claims related to COVID-19 countermeasures or failure to act | PREP Act does not completely preempt all such state-law claims; negligence claims remain state-based |
| Embedded federal question (Grable doctrine) | No federal question is presented on the face of the complaint | PREP Act issues are necessarily raised by the claims | No embedded federal question as per well-pleaded complaint rule |
| Scope of PREP Act immunity | Defendants did not administer or use any covered countermeasures; no causal relationship to invoke immunity | PREP Act immunity bars these claims regardless of omissions | PREP Act immunity not applicable; claims are about failures to act, not use of covered countermeasures |
Key Cases Cited
- Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (well-pleaded complaint rule governs federal-question jurisdiction; plaintiff can avoid federal jurisdiction by relying exclusively on state law)
- Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr., 463 U.S. 1 (removal jurisdiction may arise when state-law claims raise substantial federal law questions)
- Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58 (complete preemption as a distinct and rare removal doctrine)
- Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200 (test for complete preemption: exclusive federal cause of action; no independent state duty)
- Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (embedded federal question doctrine applies if federal issue is necessarily raised and substantial)
- Empire Healthchoice Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677 (limits scope of Grable doctrine; more than a federal element required for federal question jurisdiction)
- Watson v. Philip Morris Cos., 551 U.S. 142 (private actors merely complying with federal regulation are not "acting under" federal officers)
- Alabama v. Conley, 245 F.3d 1292 (reviewability of remand orders under § 1447(d) when § 1442 removal is asserted)