Michael Lawler v. Cedar Operations, LLC, 5:21-cv-01017

Background

Plaintiff Michael Lawler sued Cedar Operations, LLC on behalf of himself and his deceased father, alleging elder/dependent adult protection Act violations, negligence, and wrongful death after the decedent contracted COVID‑19 at Cedar Mountain and died.
Allegations: Cedar Mountain knew of an outbreak, failed to notify the decedent/family before readmission, failed to isolate or implement infection‑control measures, allegedly skipped a dialysis treatment, and otherwise provided inadequate care.
Defendant removed to federal court, asserting three grounds: (1) PREP Act complete preemption (federal question), (2) Grable federal‑question jurisdiction, and (3) federal‑officer removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).
The court evaluated whether the PREP Act covers Plaintiff’s claims and whether PREP Act or Grable create federal jurisdiction, and separately whether Cedar was “acting under” a federal officer.
The court remanded the case to state court, holding: (a) Plaintiff’s allegations describe general inaction, not covered administration/allocations of countermeasures; (b) the PREP Act is not a complete‑preemption statute for these claims; (c) Grable’s requirements are not met; and (d) federal‑officer removal is unavailable because mere compliance with CDC/CMS guidance (and alleged inaction) does not show acting under a federal officer. The court also denied jurisdictional discovery and a stay.

Issues

Issue	Lawler	Cedar	Held
Whether PREP Act completely preempts state claims (creates federal‑question jurisdiction)	Lawler: PREP Act does not apply; claims allege inaction, not administration of covered countermeasures	Cedar: PREP Act immunizes covered persons and displaces state law; removal proper	Held: No complete preemption — PREP Act does not wholly displace state remedies and is not a substitute federal cause of action for these negligence/wrongful‑death claims
Whether Plaintiff’s allegations fall within PREP Act scope (administration/priority decisions re: countermeasures)	Lawler: Complaints allege general inattention, not reasoned non‑administration or allocation of scarce countermeasures	Cedar: Allegations (e.g., failure to screen/monitor) relate to covered countermeasures and the FAD’s broad definition	Held: Claims describe inaction, not conscious allocation/administration decisions; PREP Act scope not implicated
Whether Grable confers federal jurisdiction	Lawler: Federal issue arises only from defendant’s preemption defense, not necessarily raised by complaint	Cedar: Federal interest in unified COVID response makes Grable applicable	Held: Grable fails — federal issue is not necessarily raised by the complaint and Grable’s elements are unmet
Whether federal‑officer removal (28 U.S.C. §1442) applies	Lawler: Defendant was not acting under a federal officer; allegations are of inaction/compliance with guidance	Cedar: Followed CDC/CMS directives; acted under federal direction	Held: §1442 denied — compliance with CDC/CMS (and alleged inaction) is not acting under a federal officer; no causal nexus or colorable federal defense shown

Key Cases Cited

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts have limited subject‑matter jurisdiction)
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (federal preemption as a defense is not a basis for removal)
Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (2009) (complete preemption allows recharacterization as federal claim in narrow circumstances)
Beneficial Nat'l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1 (2003) (complete preemption requires displacement of state cause of action)
City of Oakland v. BP PLC, 969 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (two‑part Ninth Circuit test for complete preemption)
Grable & Sons Metal Prods. v. Darue Eng’g, 545 U.S. 308 (2005) (federal‑issue jurisdiction test)
Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (2013) (refining Grable factors for federal‑issue jurisdiction)
Watson v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 551 U.S. 142 (2007) (defining "acting under" for federal‑officer removal)