Quinto v. The Regents of the University of California

Background

Krystal Quinto sued The Regents of the University of California, on behalf of herself and a proposed class of California residents. She alleged that UCLA Health’s website used Facebook’s Tracking Pixel to disclose internet communications, information reflecting the content of those communications, personal medical information, and users’ identities to Facebook without authorization. Her claims arose under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, and the California Constitution’s privacy protections.

Quinto originally filed the action in Alameda County Superior Court. UC removed it to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). That statute permits a person acting under the direction of a federal officer to remove a state-court civil action to federal court. Quinto moved to remand, meaning to return the case to state court. UC opposed the motion.

Court’s Analysis

To remove under Section 1442, UC had to show that it was a statutory “person,” that there was a causal connection between its challenged conduct and directions from a federal officer, and that it had a legally supportable federal defense. Quinto did not dispute that UC satisfied the “person” requirement or had a colorable federal defense. The dispute concerned whether UC was acting under a federal officer or agency.

UC argued that the federal Meaningful Use program directed healthcare providers participating in Medicare and Medicaid to provide patients with online access to health records and improve patient engagement. UC also relied on federal incentives, guidance, and a model involving third-party marketers such as Facebook. The court held that these circumstances did not show that UC was acting under a federal officer or agency.

The court explained that receiving incentive payments for promoting a broad federal interest is not the same as being contracted to perform or assist with a basic governmental duty. It also explained that merely complying with detailed federal regulations or recommendations is insufficient. UC did not identify a federal duty that it was performing, and it did not show a level of federal direction and control comparable to that exercised over a military contractor in a case where removal was upheld.

Disposition

The court concluded that the action had been removed improperly and without federal jurisdiction. Judge James Donato ordered that the case be remanded to the Superior Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The order addressed removal jurisdiction and did not resolve the merits of Quinto’s privacy claims.

Effect of the Order

The federal court case ends with the remand order, and the action returns to the state court where it was originally filed. The opinion does not decide whether UC unlawfully disclosed Quinto’s information or whether the proposed class should be certified.