Shapnik v. The Hebrew Home for the Aged at Riverdale

Background

Bella Shapnik, in proposed representative capacities and individually, and Yakov Shapnik individually brought a medical-malpractice and negligence case. The opinion states that the plaintiffs originally filed the case in state court, asserting only state-law claims against non-diverse parties. The defendants removed the case to the Southern District of New York based on federal-question jurisdiction and moved for summary judgment.

Jurisdiction Question

The court observed that neither side directly addressed whether removal was proper, although the plaintiffs referred to the issue in their opposition to summary judgment. The court emphasized that it has an independent duty to examine its own subject-matter jurisdiction and that doubts about removal are generally resolved against removal.

The court explained that a federal defense, including preemption, ordinarily does not create a basis for removal, even if the defense is expected from the complaint or is the only issue the parties believe matters. The opinion identified exceptions, including situations in which Congress expressly authorizes removal or a federal statute completely replaces the state-law cause of action. This doctrine is called complete preemption.

The court also noted that removal ordinarily is evaluated from the allegations of the well-pleaded complaint—the complaint as presented by the plaintiff, without relying on anticipated defenses. Because the defendants relied on materials outside the complaint in their summary-judgment motion, the court stated that the parties could address whether those materials had any bearing on removal jurisdiction.

Issues for Briefing

The court invited briefs addressing:

- whether complete preemption applied; - whether the court could look beyond the well-pleaded complaint when deciding whether it had jurisdiction, including whether the summary-judgment materials mattered; - whether complete preemption applied and, if not, whether the complaint itself presented a federal question; - the cited growing consensus that state-law negligence and wrongful-death claims against nursing homes for failing to protect against COVID-19 are not properly treated as federal-law claims under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act; and - how much weight should be given to administrative interpretations of that Act under the standards identified by the court.

Order and Effect

Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered the briefs to be filed no later than April 1, 2021. Each brief was limited to 15 double-spaced pages, and opposition briefs were not permitted. The order did not decide whether the case was properly removed, whether the federal court had jurisdiction, or whether the pending summary-judgment motion should be granted or denied.