Rodas v. Seidlin
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18082
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Rodas received emergency prenatal care at Crusader Clinic in Rockford, Illinois; UIC physicians Soleanicov and Seidlin were salaried, unlike Baxter who was treated as a federal employee; Crusader Clinic’s relationship with U.S. funding implicated federal liability rules for Baxter; the case was removed to federal court under the federal officer removal statute (28 U.S.C. § 1442) after initial state-court proceedings; the district court granted summary judgment based on the Illinois Good Samaritan Act’s “without fee” provision; Rodas amended to add the United States after administrative denial of her FTCA claim and removal occurred again under § 1442; the district court held that Soleanicov and Seidlin fell within the Act’s immunity framework, prompting Rodas’s appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal under §1442(a)(1) was proper and derivative jurisdiction applies | Rodas argues derivative jurisdiction cannot salvage improper removal | Defendants contend removal was proper and derivative jurisdiction governs | Removal proper; derivative jurisdiction cabined by Grubbs/Caterpillar; not fatal to jurisdiction |
| Interpretation of the Illinois Good Samaritan Act’s ‘without fee’ requirement | Rodas contends Soleanicov billed for services, violating ‘without fee’; Seidlin’s lack of billing raises good-faith issues | Defendants contend no billing by Seidlin and non-billing by Soleanicov aligns with Act's exemptions | Soleanicov charged a fee; Seidlin’s lack of billing raises a material fact about good faith; summary judgment improper |
| Remand and procedural posture after derivative-jurisdiction ruling | N/A | N/A | Continued federal-court jurisdiction on remand is appropriate; not required to remand immediately to state court |
Key Cases Cited
- Grubbs v. Gen. Elec. Credit Corp., 405 U.S. 699 (U.S. 1972) (derivative jurisdiction limits; original-jurisdiction relevance at judgment)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 (U.S. 1996) (derivative-jurisdiction limits; judgment-time jurisdiction analysis)
- Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567 (U.S. 2004) (time-of-filing rule for subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 547 U.S. 633 (U.S. 2006) (well-pleaded complaint and removal basics; federal-question/removal context)
- Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1969) (purpose of federal-officer removal to protect federal defenses in a federal forum)