101 F.4th 410
5th Cir.2024Background
- Pebbles Martin brought a class action against LCMC Health Holdings and Louisiana Children’s Medical Center alleging they installed tracking pixels on their online patient portal, sharing private health information with third parties for targeted advertising.
- Martin claims these actions violate the Louisiana Electronic Surveillance Act and constitute unjust enrichment.
- LCMC removed the case to federal court, relying on the federal officer removal statute, arguing it acted under the direction of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in operating the portal to comply with "Meaningful Use" requirements for federal incentives.
- The district court remanded the case to state court, holding that LCMC's conduct was not under federal direction sufficient for federal officer removal.
- LCMC appealed the remand order to the Fifth Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was LCMC acting under the direction of a federal officer for removal? | No, LCMC’s actions were just regulatory compliance, not federal direction. | Yes, operating the portal to comply with federal rules constituted acting under federal officers. | No, mere compliance with regulation does not meet the standard for acting under federal officer. |
| Is a hospital’s use of tracking pixels on a portal a federal act? | No, embedding pixels and arising data sharing is not federally mandated or directed. | Yes, portal was created and operated due to federal meaningful use incentives and requirements. | No, government did not direct the specific act of embedding tracking pixels. |
| Does the federal officer removal statute apply? | No, the statute only applies when private parties help carry out federal duties, not when simply following regulations. | Yes, LCMC asserts it was helping fulfill federal objectives for patient access to records. | No, LCMC was not assisting government with unique governmental tasks. |
| Should the case stay in federal court? | No, there is no federal jurisdiction; it belongs in state court. | Yes, case should be heard federally due to asserted protection by federal officer statute. | No, affirmed remand to state court; motion to stay denied as moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Watson v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., 551 U.S. 142 (compliance with federal law and regulation alone does not create federal officer removal jurisdiction)
- Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402 (purpose of federal officer removal statute is to protect those acting under federal law from state court liability)
- Latiolais v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., 951 F.3d 286 (private entity may remove under federal officer statute when acting under federal direction with delegation of legal authority)
- Williams v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 990 F.3d 852 (statute should be broadly construed in favor of a federal forum)
- Butler v. Coast Electric Power Ass’n, 926 F.3d 190 (federal officer removal applies where private parties act as instrumentalities of the federal government)