LE CARRE v. ALLIANCE HC 11 LLC
3:21-cv-20226
| D.N.J. | Nov 28, 2022Background
- Plaintiff James Le Carre (individually and as administrator of Alexander Olin's estate) sued Alliance HC II LLC and individual defendants in New Jersey state court alleging COVID‑era nursing‑home care claims.
- Defendants removed to federal court asserting (1) federal‑question removal via complete preemption under the PREP Act and (2) federal‑officer removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442; Plaintiffs moved to remand.
- The District Court granted remand on July 18, 2022, a certified copy was mailed to state court, Defendants appealed and moved for a stay of the remand order pending appeal; an automatic stay had briefly been entered earlier.
- The court applied the standard four‑factor stay test (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, harm to others, public interest), treating the first two factors as gateway issues.
- Relying principally on the Third Circuit’s Maglioli decision (same defendants and similar facts), the court concluded Defendants are unlikely to show they are federal officers and that the PREP Act completely preempts Plaintiffs’ claims.
Issues
| Issue | Le Carre's Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal‑officer removal (28 U.S.C. § 1442) | Defendants are private providers not acting under federal officers; removal improper | Defendants acted at direction/control of federal agencies (CMS/CDC) and are removable | Court: Unlikely Defendants will prevail; Maglioli controls; no federal‑officer jurisdiction shown |
| PREP Act complete preemption | Complaint pleads state negligence claims, not PREP Act willful‑misconduct claims; PREP Act doesn't preempt these claims | Complaint alleges willful/intentional misconduct that would fall under the PREP Act's exclusive federal cause of action | Court: Plaintiffs’ pleadings sound in negligence; PREP Act preempts only willful‑misconduct claims; Defendants unlikely to succeed |
| Irreparable harm / balance of harms & public interest | Stay would prejudice plaintiffs (delay, witness memory); state‑court progress not irreparable | Litigation expense and burden of state‑court proceedings constitutes irreparable harm warranting a stay | Court: Litigation expense is not irreparable harm; balance favors remand and public interest disfavors stay; stay denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Maglioli v. Alliance HC Holdings, LLC, 16 F.4th 393 (3d Cir. 2021) (PREP Act preempts only willful‑misconduct claims; similar defendants not considered federal officers)
- Agostini v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 729 F.3d 350 (3d Cir. 2013) (district court loses jurisdiction when certified remand order is sent to state court)
- Reilly v. City of Harrisburg, 858 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 2017) (four‑factor stay‑pending‑appeal framework; gateway factors are most critical)
- Renegotiation Bd. v. Bannercraft Clothing Co., 415 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1974) (ordinary litigation expense, even if substantial, is not irreparable harm)
- Saldana v. Glenhaven Healthcare, LLC, 27 F.4th 679 (9th Cir. 2022) (PREP Act contours applied to COVID‑era nursing‑home claims)
- Manyweather v. Woodlawn Manor, Inc., 40 F.4th 237 (5th Cir. 2022) (PREP Act decisions addressing similar issues)
- Martin v. Petersen Health Ops., LLC, 37 F.4th 1210 (7th Cir. 2022) (PREP Act decisions addressing similar issues)
- Leroy v. Hume, 563 F. Supp. 3d 22 (E.D.N.Y. 2021) (state‑court discovery may be useful to a later federal case; undermines irreparable‑harm argument)