Druckman v. Morningside Acquisition I, LLC

Background

Stacie Druckman filed the action as administrator of the estate of Arthur Druckman. The opinion states that Arthur Druckman contracted COVID-19 and died in April 2020. Druckman alleges that the nursing home facility where he resided, owned and operated by Morningside Acquisition I, LLC, was responsible for his death.

The complaint asserted claims under New York Public Health Law sections 2801-d and 2803-c, along with claims for negligence, gross negligence, conscious pain and suffering, wrongful death, and nursing home malpractice. Druckman filed the action in New York Supreme Court, Bronx County. Morningside removed it to federal court and relied on federal removal statutes. Druckman moved to remand, arguing that the complaint presented only state-law claims, that the parties were not diverse, and that the asserted grounds for removal did not apply.

Federal jurisdiction and removal arguments

The court explained that a defendant seeking removal bears the burden of showing that federal jurisdiction and removal are proper. According to the complaint, all parties were citizens of New York, and Morningside did not invoke diversity jurisdiction.

Morningside argued that removal was proper under the general federal removal statute because the PREP Act was a complete-preemption statute. Complete preemption is a narrow doctrine under which a federal statute can replace a state-law claim and convert it into a federal claim for removal purposes. The court rejected this argument, concluding that the PREP Act is primarily an immunity statute and does not replace the state-law claims asserted in this case with federal causes of action.

Morningside also relied on the rule allowing federal jurisdiction over certain state-law claims that necessarily raise a substantial and disputed federal issue. The court rejected that theory because Druckman’s claims did not depend on interpreting the PREP Act. The court stated that the likely disputes concerned the nursing home’s conduct, such as whether staff members worked while ill or whether residents with COVID-19 were isolated. Morningside’s anticipated immunity defense did not change the nature of the claims.

Finally, Morningside invoked the federal-officer removal statute. It argued that its operations during the COVID-19 pandemic were guided by government directives and that it was being sued for acts undertaken at the direction of a federal officer. The court held that Morningside had not shown that it was assisting or helping carry out the duties of a federal officer. Mere compliance with laws or government orders was insufficient to establish that Morningside was acting under a federal officer.

Disposition

The court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and rejected all of Morningside’s asserted grounds for removal. The court GRANTED Druckman’s motion to remand and directed the Clerk to remand the action to the New York Supreme Court, Bronx County. The opinion addressed only whether the case belonged in federal court; it did not decide the merits of the underlying state-law claims.