Sorace v. Orinda Care Center, LLC
- Edward Chen
- 3:21-cv-05714
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 21
In Sorace v. Orinda Care Center, Judge Chen sent the case back to state court and denied defendants’ dismissal motion as moot.
The ruling sends the state-law case brought by Olga Sorace’s representative and Essie Bracknell back to Contra Costa County Superior Court and leaves the defendants’ PREP Act defense unresolved for that court.
What happened
In Sorace v. Orinda Care Center, Olga Sorace’s representative and Essie Bracknell sued the defendants in state court over alleged elder abuse, neglect, negligence, and wrongful death after Sorace’s death. The complaint alleged inadequate care, dehydration and malnutrition, and understaffing at the care facility.
The defendants moved the case to federal court, arguing that federal jurisdiction existed under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, the federal-question doctrine, and the federal-officer statute. The court rejected those arguments, finding that the complaint raised state-law claims and did not establish the required connection to federal law or federal directions.
Judge Chen granted the plaintiffs’ motion to remand the case to Contra Costa County Superior Court and denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot. The court did not decide whether the PREP Act would otherwise bar the claims as a defense; it left that issue for the state court.
The detailed version
- Sorace v. Orinda Care Center, LLC · No. 3:21-cv-05714
- Edward Chen
- Nov. 9, 2021
Background
Olga Sorace, through her personal legal representative and successor in interest, Essie Bracknell, and Bracknell individually, filed the case in Contra Costa County Superior Court. The complaint asserted four California-law claims: elder abuse and neglect, violations of patient rights, negligence, and wrongful death.
The complaint alleged that Sorace had been admitted to Orinda Care Center, a skilled nursing facility, for long-term care in 2014. It described her Alzheimer’s dementia and other physical and cognitive conditions, including her dependence on others for daily activities. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants failed to assess her needs, update her care plans, provide adequate help with food and liquids, and monitor dehydration and malnutrition. They also alleged that understaffing caused the facility to fail to provide required care and that this neglect contributed to Sorace contracting COVID-19 and dying on April 18, 2020.
The defendants removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss. The plaintiffs moved to remand, meaning they asked the federal court to return the case to state court.
Reasons for Remand
The defendants asserted three possible bases for federal jurisdiction:
1. Complete preemption under the PREP Act. Complete preemption is a narrow doctrine under which a federal law completely replaces a state-law claim with an exclusive federal claim. The court held that the plaintiffs’ claims did not fall within the PREP Act’s coverage because they alleged failures involving individualized care, hydration, nutrition, and staffing—not the administration or use of a covered COVID-19 countermeasure. The court found no causal connection between the alleged injury and a covered countermeasure.
The court also held that the PREP Act did not completely preempt the claims because it neither wholly displaced the relevant state-law claims nor provided a substitute federal cause of action for the alleged negligence. The court explained that the PREP Act generally provides immunity and an administrative compensation process rather than the type of exclusive federal cause of action required for complete preemption.
2. An embedded federal question under the Grable doctrine. A state-law claim can sometimes support federal jurisdiction when it necessarily raises a disputed and substantial federal issue that a federal court can decide without upsetting the division of responsibilities between federal and state courts. The court held that the plaintiffs’ California negligence and elder-abuse claims did not necessarily raise an issue under the PREP Act. The PREP Act appeared in the defendants’ anticipated defense, not as an essential element of the plaintiffs’ claims. A federal defense, including preemption, generally cannot create federal-question jurisdiction.
3. Federal-officer removal. The federal-officer statute permits removal in certain circumstances when a defendant acted under the direction of a federal officer. The court held that the defendants had not shown that the conduct challenged in the complaint was performed pursuant to a federal officer’s directions. General federal regulations and public directives concerning medical services and COVID-19, along with the facility’s heavy federal regulation, were not enough. The court also noted the lack of a causal relationship between the plaintiffs’ claims and the asserted federal directions.
Other Ruling
The court granted the defendants’ request for judicial notice of publicly available government documents whose authenticity and accuracy were not disputed.
Disposition
The court found that the defendants had not carried their burden to show that removal was proper. Judge Edward M. Chen granted the plaintiffs’ motion to remand the case to Contra Costa County Superior Court and denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot. The court expressly made no decision on whether the PREP Act would bar the plaintiffs’ claims as an ordinary defense or on another basis, leaving that issue for the state court.
Read the full 21-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.