LE CARRE v. ALLIANCE HC 11 LLC
3:21-cv-20226
| D.N.J. | Jul 18, 2022Background
- Plaintiff James Le Carre and the Estate of Alexander Olin sued nursing-home–related defendants in New Jersey state court after Olin died of COVID-19 on April 10, 2020, alleging violations of N.J. statutes and OBRA, medical malpractice, negligence, and gross negligence.
- Defendants removed to federal court asserting three bases: PREP Act preemption (including that the complaint alleges PREP Act–level willful misconduct), an embedded federal question, and federal-officer removal.
- Defendants previously raised identical removal theories in Maglioli, and the Third Circuit rejected PREP Act preemption, embedded federal-question removal, and federal-officer removal in that case.
- The district court applied Maglioli as binding precedent and examined whether the Complaint actually pleaded willful misconduct under the PREP Act’s stringent seven-element, clear-and-convincing standard.
- The court found Plaintiffs pleaded negligence/gross negligence, not the PREP Act’s willful-misconduct elements, and concluded nursing homes are not federal officers; it therefore remanded the case to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal-officer removal | Removal improper; no federal-officer relationship | Nursing home acted under federal direction/authority and is removable under federal-officer statute | Rejected — nursing homes not deputized; Maglioli controls; federal-officer removal unavailable |
| Embedded federal-question jurisdiction (PREP Act) | State-law claims do not require PREP Act as an essential element | PREP Act raises substantial federal issues that are embedded in the complaint | Rejected — PREP Act would be an anticipated federal defense, not an essential element of the state claim |
| PREP Act preemption via willful misconduct | Complaint pleads negligence/gross negligence, not willful misconduct | Complaint’s allegations of "intentional"/"conscious" conduct and punitive damages invoke PREP Act willful-misconduct exception | Rejected — allegations do not satisfy PREP Act’s seven elements or clear-and-convincing standard; PREP Act does not preempt |
| Burden and standard for removal | Remand appropriate; doubts resolved for remand | Defendants must show federal jurisdiction | Remanded — defendant failed to meet removal burden; removal statutes construed strictly |
Key Cases Cited
- Maglioli v. Alliance HC Holdings LLC, 16 F.4th 393 (3d Cir. 2021) (rejecting PREP Act preemption, embedded federal-question removal, and federal-officer removal for similar nursing-home claims)
- Boyer v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 913 F.2d 108 (3d Cir. 1990) (defendant bears burden of proving federal jurisdiction on removal)
- Abels v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 770 F.2d 26 (3d Cir. 1985) (removal statutes must be strictly construed; doubts resolved in favor of remand)
- Manning v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc., 772 F.3d 158 (3d Cir. 2014) (embedded federal-question doctrine requires federal issue to be an essential element of the state claim)
- In re Commonwealth's Motion to Appoint Counsel Against or Directed to Def. Ass'n of Phila., 790 F.3d 457 (3d Cir. 2015) (discussing limits on private-party federal-officer removal)
- Mitchell v. Advanced HCS, L.L.C., 28 F.4th 580 (5th Cir. 2022) (similar treatment of PREP Act and removal issues)
- Saldana v. Glenhaven Healthcare LLC, 27 F.4th 679 (9th Cir. 2022) (similar analysis rejecting PREP Act removal theories)
- Martin v. Petersen Health Operations, LLC, 37 F.4th 1210 (7th Cir. 2022) (similar reasoning on PREP Act and removal)