Zane Cagle v. NHC Healthcare, 78 F.4th 1061

In June 2020 Willis Cagle died of COVID-19 after residence at NHC HealthCare–Maryland Heights; son Zane Cagle sued the nursing home entities and twelve staff in Missouri state court for wrongful death, negligence per se, and lost chance of survival.
NHC entities (all non-Missouri citizens) were served Nov. 23, 2021; many individual defendants are Missouri citizens but had not yet been served.
On Dec. 7, 2021, before the individual defendants were served, the NHC entities removed to federal court.
NHC invoked three removal theories: (1) diversity jurisdiction (arguing snap removal satisfied §1441(b)(2)), (2) federal-question jurisdiction via the PREP Act (complete preemption or Grable substantial federal issue), and (3) federal-officer removal under 28 U.S.C. §1442.
The district court remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Diversity jurisdiction — complete diversity / snap removal	Cagle: named Missouri defendants destroy complete diversity.	NHC: snap removal before service of forum-state defendants makes only "properly joined and served" defendants relevant.	No. Complete diversity requires considering citizenship of all named defendants; snap removal does not cure lack of complete diversity.
PREP Act — complete preemption	Cagle: state-law negligence claims govern; PREP Act does not displace them.	NHC: PREP Act immunizes covered persons and thus completely preempts state claims, creating federal jurisdiction.	No. PREP Act supplies a federal defense and a limited exclusive remedy for willful misconduct only; it does not completely preempt ordinary negligence claims.
PREP Act — Grable substantial federal question	Cagle: state negligence elements do not necessarily raise federal questions.	NHC: resolution of PREP Act immunity is a necessarily raised, disputed, substantial federal issue.	No. PREP Act immunity is a defense; no federal issue is a necessary element of the pleaded state claims, so Grable does not apply.
Federal-officer removal (§1442)	Cagle: NHC acted as private actor, not under federal officer control.	NHC: designation as "critical infrastructure" and pandemic regulation meant it acted under federal direction.	No. Pervasive regulation/critical-infrastructure designation alone does not show acting under a federal officer; §1442 removal fails.

Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 (1996) (complete diversity requirement for diversity jurisdiction)
Lincoln Property Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) (all named defendants’ citizenship considered for diversity)
Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005) (federal-question exception for state-law claims)
Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr., 463 U.S. 1 (1983) (well-pleaded complaint rule; federal defense insufficient)
Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1 (2003) (complete preemption doctrine)
Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (2013) (four-part test for Grable-type jurisdiction)
Watson v. Philip Morris Cos., 551 U.S. 142 (2007) (standard for when a private actor is "acting under" a federal officer)
Jacks v. Meridian Res. Co., LLC, 701 F.3d 1224 (8th Cir. 2012) (distinguishes regulated industries from contractors for §1442 removal)
Buljic v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 22 F.4th 730 (8th Cir. 2022) (pervasive regulation insufficient to support §1442 removal)
Solomon v. St. Joseph Hosp., 62 F.4th 54 (2d Cir. 2023) (PREP Act does not completely preempt ordinary state-law claims)
Martin v. Petersen Health Operations, LLC, 37 F.4th 1210 (7th Cir. 2022) (similar holding on PREP Act and §1442 removal)