Rivera v. Eastchester Rehabilitation and Health Care, L.L.C.
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:22-cv-02019
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Rivera v. Eastchester, Judge McMahon granted Rivera’s motion to remand, finding no federal jurisdiction over the COVID-19 nursing-home claims.
Robert Rivera’s lawsuit against Eastchester Rehabilitation and Health Care LLC, doing business as Eastchester Rehabilitation and Health Care Center, returns to the Supreme Court of Bronx County; the federal court did not decide the underlying claims.
What happened
Rivera v. Eastchester Rehabilitation and Health Care, L.L.C. concerns Robert Rivera’s state-court lawsuit as administrator of Angel Rivera’s estate. The lawsuit alleges that the nursing-home defendants failed to protect Angel from COVID-19 and asserts New York statutory and common-law claims.
The defendants moved the case to federal court, arguing that federal jurisdiction existed under the federal COVID-19 emergency law, the federal-officer removal statute, and a rule for state claims involving important federal issues. Rivera asked the court to send the case back to state court.
Judge Colleen McMahon granted Rivera’s motion to remand. She ruled that the claims did not arise under federal law, were not completely displaced by the federal emergency law, did not show that the defendants acted under a federal officer, and did not necessarily raise a substantial federal issue. The court closed the federal case and directed that the file be sent to the Supreme Court of Bronx County.
The detailed version
- Rivera v. Eastchester Rehabilitation and Health Care, L.L.C. · No. 1:22-cv-02019
- Colleen McMahon
- June 21, 2022
Background
In April 2020, Angel Rivera, a resident of Eastchester Rehabilitation and Health Care Center, contracted the virus that causes COVID-19 and died. Robert Rivera, as administrator of Angel Rivera’s estate and Angel’s next of kin, filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County.
The complaint asserted one statutory claim under New York Public Health Law §§ 2801-D and 2803-C and six common-law claims involving negligence, pain and suffering, wrongful death, gross negligence, and nursing-home malpractice. The opinion states that the complaint alleged the defendants failed to protect residents from exposure to staff and patients with COVID-19.
Removal and Motion to Remand
The defendants removed the case to federal court on March 10, 2022. They argued that federal jurisdiction existed on three grounds:
- The federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, or PREP Act, completely displaced Rivera’s state-law claims, making them federal claims for purposes of removal.
- The federal-officer removal statute applied because the defendants allegedly followed government directives to treat and prevent the spread of COVID-19 and therefore acted as private surrogates for the federal government.
- The state-law claims necessarily raised substantial federal issues under the rule recognized in Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing.
Rivera moved to remand, meaning to return the case to state court. He argued that the complaint asserted only state-law claims, that the parties were not diverse, and that none of the defendants’ asserted grounds supported removal. The defendants opposed the motion.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that the party removing a case bears the burden of showing that federal jurisdiction is proper. It also stated that removal statutes are narrowly construed and that a federal court must remand a case if it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.
The court concluded that Rivera’s claims did not arise under federal law. The complaint pleaded New York statutory and common-law claims, and the court found no federal claim on the face of the complaint.
The court also ruled that the PREP Act did not completely displace the state-law claims. It adopted the reasoning of a prior related proceeding, Dupervil v. Alliance Health Operations, LLC, and agreed with what it described as the strong consensus of federal courts that the PREP Act does not completely displace state-law claims arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.
The court rejected the federal-officer argument as well. It explained that acting under a federal officer requires involvement in helping carry out the federal officer’s duties or tasks. Merely complying with federal directives and regulations, even for a highly regulated private entity, was not enough. The court found that the defendants had not shown that Eastchester Rehabilitation and Health Care Center was acting under a federal officer.
Finally, the court ruled that the state-law claims did not necessarily raise a substantial federal issue under the Grable rule. It therefore rejected all three asserted grounds for federal jurisdiction.
Disposition
The court granted Rivera’s motion to remand to state court. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the federal case, terminate the motion at Docket Number 7, and promptly transmit the file to the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court, Bronx County. The scheduled civil conference was cancelled. This ruling addressed federal jurisdiction and the location of the case; the opinion did not decide whether Rivera would prevail on the underlying claims.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.