Gonzalez v. CF Watsonville West, LLC

Background

The plaintiffs are the surviving children of Severo Ronquillo. They sued CF Watsonville West, LLC and Watsonville Post Acute Center, which the opinion says own and/or operate a nursing facility in Watsonville. The complaint alleged that Ronquillo fell at home in March 2020, suffered a hip fracture requiring surgery, and was later placed at defendants’ facility. It further alleged that he fell from a wheelchair in June 2020 because of staff inattention and contracted COVID-19 in September 2020 because of substandard care and protocols. He died on October 5, 2020.

The complaint asserted six state-law causes of action: professional negligence, elder abuse, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent hiring and supervision, wrongful death, and a survivor action. The defendants removed the case from state court to federal court. Judge Cousins then issued an order requiring defendants to show why the case should not be sent back based on allegedly untimely removal. Defendants responded and also filed a motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs argued that the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear the case.

Jurisdiction Arguments

The defendants argued that removal was proper for three reasons: the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act completely preempted the state-law claims; the complaint presented a substantial federal-law question embedded in the state claims; and the federal-officer removal statute authorized removal.

The court rejected those arguments. It relied on its earlier decision in a related case, where it had found similar arguments untenable, and noted that other California federal district courts had also ruled against defendants in comparable cases. The court stated that the defendants did not address those decisions. It also rejected the defendants’ reliance on a Central District of California decision that the court had previously rejected.

The court discussed a Third Circuit decision recognizing that the PREP Act creates express preemption for certain willful-misconduct claims, but not generally for claims outside that narrow category. The court concluded that the allegations here suggested, at most, negligence and did not allege conduct knowingly undertaken without legal or factual justification or with an intent to achieve a wrongful purpose. The court also emphasized that removal jurisdiction is strictly construed and that federal jurisdiction must be rejected when there is doubt about the right to remove.

Ruling and Effect

The court DISCHARGED the order to show cause and REMANDED the case to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Because of that ruling, the court did not rule on defendants’ motion to dismiss. The clerk was ordered to administratively close the federal case file.

The decision resolved the federal court’s jurisdiction over the removed case. It did not decide whether the plaintiffs would prevail on their state-law claims or whether the defendants would prevail on their motion to dismiss.