Vasquez v. Pelham Parkway Nursing Care and Rehabilitation Facility, LLC
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:22-cv-07691
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Vasquez v. Pelham Parkway, Judge Gardephe ordered Pelham to explain why the case should not return to state court.
The order directly affected Pelham Parkway Nursing Care and Rehabilitation Facility, LLC, which had removed the case, and Margie Vasquez as proposed administrator of David Vasquez’s estate, whose case could be returned to state court. The opinion also lists ABC Corporation and ABC Partnership as defendants.
What happened
Vasquez v. Pelham Parkway Nursing Care and Rehabilitation Facility, LLC concerns a case that Pelham removed from state court to federal court. Pelham argued that federal jurisdiction existed because the claims were governed by federal law, involved an important federal question, or concerned actions taken under federal direction during the pandemic.
The court noted that federal courts generally reject those reasons for removing similar COVID-19 cases. It ordered Pelham to explain by December 7, 2022, why the case should not be returned to state court for lack of federal jurisdiction.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe did not yet order the case returned to state court; he issued an order requiring Pelham to show cause.
The detailed version
- Vasquez v. Pelham Parkway Nursing Care and Rehabilitation Facility, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-07691
- Paul Gardephe
- Dec. 1, 2022
Background
Margie Vasquez, identified as the proposed administrator of David Vasquez’s estate, brought the case in state court. Pelham Parkway Nursing Care and Rehabilitation Facility, LLC, doing business as Pelham Parkway Nursing Care and Rehabilitation Facility, removed the case to federal court on September 9, 2022. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
Pelham’s jurisdiction arguments
Pelham argued that the federal court had subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear the case, for three reasons:
- The claims allegedly arose under federal law because the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act completely preempted the state-law claims. Complete preemption is a doctrine that can convert certain state-law claims into federal claims for jurisdictional purposes.
- The case allegedly presented an important federal question embedded in the state-law complaint under the rule discussed in Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing.
- The federal-officer removal statute allegedly allowed removal because Pelham’s pandemic response was carried out under the federal government’s specific direction and oversight.
Court’s analysis
The court cited decisions stating that removal in similar pandemic-related cases was improper and that remand—returning the case to state court—was required. It stated that federal courts generally had concluded that the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act did not completely preempt state-law claims arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. The court also cited decisions finding that removal was improper under the embedded-federal-question doctrine and that hospitals following federal pandemic guidelines were not acting under federal officers for purposes of federal-officer jurisdiction.
Order
The court ordered Pelham to show cause by December 7, 2022, why the case should not be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. This order to show cause was not itself a final order remanding the case. Judge Paul G. Gardephe signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.