John Doe v. Cedars-Sinai Health System
106 F.4th 907
| 9th Cir. | 2024Background
- Multiple patients (plaintiffs) filed class action suits in California state court against Cedars-Sinai Health System, alleging unlawful disclosure of private medical information through tracking software (Meta Pixel, Google Analytics) on the hospital’s website/patient portal.
- Plaintiffs alleged these disclosures violated several California statutes and privacy laws; claims were solely under state law, no federal claims asserted.
- Cedars-Sinai removed the cases to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), arguing it acted under a federal officer in creating digital health records infrastructure as required by the HITECH Act and related federal regulation.
- District court remanded the cases, holding Cedars-Sinai was simply complying with a comprehensive regulatory framework and did not act under the direction of a federal officer.
- Cedars-Sinai appealed. The Court of Appeals consolidated the cases and affirmed the district court’s remand to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cedars-Sinai acted under a federal officer (§ 1442) | Cedars-Sinai’s website development was compliance with regulation, not direction from a federal officer. | Its portal furthers federal goals under the HITECH Act, via government regulation, supervision and incentives. | Not acting under a federal officer; removal not justified. |
| If regulatory compliance is enough for federal officer status | Compliance alone is insufficient; must be direct federal delegation/agency relationship. | Detailed regulation/monitoring amounts to “acting under” for § 1442. | Regulation alone is not enough; need express delegation. |
| Whether incentive payments create federal officer relationship | Federal incentive payments don’t establish a principal-agent or similar relationship. | Receiving federal incentives links it sufficiently to federal objectives. | Incentives alone insufficient—the relationship is too remote. |
| Federal jurisdiction over state law claims when only regulatory compliance | Suits based on state law don't arise under federal law even if provider complies with federal rules. | Federal regulatory regime and reports convert these claims into federal matters. | No federal jurisdiction; suits correctly remanded to state court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Watson v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 551 U.S. 142 (compliance with detailed government regulation does not make a private company an agent of the government for purposes of federal officer removal)
- Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121 (purpose of § 1442 is to protect federal officers from interference with government operations)
- Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402 (discusses scope of federal officer removal statute)
- Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U.S. 257 (historical foundation and scope of federal officer removal)
- County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp., 32 F.4th 733 (lists requirements for federal officer removal, including causal nexus and colorable federal defense)
- Cabalce v. Thomas E. Blanchard & Assocs., Inc., 797 F.3d 720 (clarifies standard for determining if private actor is subject to federal control)
- Goncalves ex rel. Goncalves v. Rady Childs. Hosp. San Diego, 865 F.3d 1237 (finds jurisdiction when defendant has express delegation from Congress to fulfill government tasks)