ROBERTS v. ALARIS HEALTH AT HAMILTON PARK
2:22-cv-02298
| D.N.J. | Jun 20, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Daryl Roberts, as administrator ad prosequendum of Cheryl Roberts' estate, sued Alaris Health, LLC and Alaris Health at Hamilton Park alleging the facility ignored COVID-19 safety concerns, withheld/ discouraged PPE, concealed infections, and that Roberts died of COVID-19 in April 2020.
- Complaint asserts a single count labeled an "Intentional Tort."
- Defendants removed to federal court asserting federal-question jurisdiction based on the PREP Act and arguing the Act preempts the state-law claim (complete preemption).
- Magistrate Judge Espinosa recommended remand to state court and denial of plaintiff’s request for fees and costs.
- Defendants objected, relying on Maglioli (PREP Act creates an exclusive federal willful-misconduct cause of action); Plaintiff objected only to denial of fees.
- The district court conducted de novo review, adopted the R&R, remanded the case, and denied plaintiff’s motion for sanctions because removal was objectively reasonable under Martin.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal jurisdiction exists because the PREP Act completely preempts the state claim | PREP Act does not preempt; removal improper | PREP Act’s exclusive willful-misconduct cause of action preempts state claim, supporting removal | Remand granted — Complaint does not plead PREP Act willful-misconduct elements; defendants failed to show claim could have been brought under PREP Act |
| Whether plaintiff is entitled to fees/costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) for improper removal | Fees warranted due to alleged deceptive/removal misconduct | Fees not warranted because removal was objectively reasonable | Fees denied — removal had an objectively reasonable basis, so award of fees is inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Maglioli v. All. HC Holdings LLC, 16 F.4th 393 (3d Cir. 2021) (explains PREP Act willful-misconduct elements and limits on complete preemption)
- Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) (establishes that fees on remand are awarded only when removal lacked an objectively reasonable basis)
- United Steelworkers of Am. v. N.J. Zinc Co., Inc., 828 F.2d 1001 (3d Cir. 1987) (R&R has no force until district court acts and district court reviews objections de novo)