Westbrook v. San Pablo Healthcare & Wellness Center

Background

Lynetta Westbrook sued San Pablo Healthcare & Wellness Center, LLC, identifying herself as heir and successor-in-interest to Alex Pollard. She asserted California state-law claims for elder abuse, negligence, and wrongful death arising from Pollard’s death from COVID-19 while receiving care at San Pablo, a residential skilled nursing facility.

Westbrook originally filed the complaint in the Superior Court of California for Contra Costa County. San Pablo removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1442, and 1446. Westbrook moved to remand, meaning she asked the federal court to return the case to state court.

Federal-jurisdiction arguments

The court concluded that a recent Ninth Circuit decision, Saldana v. Glenhaven Healthcare LLC, rejected all three grounds San Pablo offered for federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also noted that it had reached the same conclusions in an earlier order in a related case. San Pablo asked the court to stay the case while Saldana was potentially appealed, but the court declined that request.

First, the court rejected San Pablo’s argument that the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d, completely preempted Westbrook’s state-law claims. The court relied on Saldana’s holding that the PREP Act is not a complete-preemption statute.

Second, the court rejected San Pablo’s argument that the complaint contained an embedded federal question. The court explained that interpreting the PREP Act was not an essential part of Westbrook’s state-law claims and that PREP Act immunity would be a defense rather than a necessary element of those claims.

Third, the court rejected San Pablo’s argument for federal-officer jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). The court relied on Saldana’s conclusion that operating as a private entity subject to government regulations and receiving additional federal guidance during the COVID-19 pandemic did not show that the facility was acting under a federal officer or agency.

Attorney fees

Westbrook requested attorney fees for what she characterized as improper removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The court denied that request. It explained that fees generally require the removing party to have lacked an objectively reasonable basis for removal, and found that San Pablo’s removal predated the court’s related decision and the Ninth Circuit’s Saldana decision.

Disposition

The court remanded the case to the Superior Court of California for Contra Costa County. It denied the request for attorney fees.