Torres v. St. Vincent dePaul Residence

Background

Minerva Torres sued St. Vincent DePaul Residence in New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, on behalf of the estate of Miguel Santiago. She alleged that Santiago had been admitted to the defendant’s facility and that, while he was there, the facility failed to timely recognize and respond to signs of COVID-19 infection and failed to provide proper infection-prevention and control procedures, resulting in his death. The amended complaint asserted claims under New York Public Health Law § 2801-d, wrongful death, and gross negligence.

The defendant removed the action to federal court. Torres moved to remand, meaning she asked the federal court to return the case to state court. The parties were not diverse, so removal required federal-question jurisdiction or another applicable removal statute.

Issues and Arguments

Torres argued that the complaint asserted only state-law claims and that the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, or PREP Act, did not provide a basis for federal jurisdiction. The defendant argued that removal was proper for three reasons: the PREP Act completely preempted the state-law claims; the claims necessarily raised federal issues under the federal-question statute; and the defendant acted under federal officers, allowing removal under the federal-officer removal statute.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the rule that federal jurisdiction generally must appear from the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint. A federal defense, including preemption, ordinarily does not support removal. The court also considered the limited exceptions for complete preemption, federal-officer removal, and state-law claims involving a substantial federal issue.

On complete preemption, the court relied on the Second Circuit’s decision in a similar COVID-19 case. That decision held that negligence, medical-malpractice, and gross-negligence claims did not fall within the PREP Act’s exclusive federal cause of action for willful misconduct. The court found the same reasoning applicable here: although Torres alleged that some conduct was intentional or willful, her pleaded causes of action were based on negligence and did not require proof of the PREP Act’s more demanding willful-misconduct standard. The court therefore held that removal was not proper under complete preemption.

On federal-officer removal, the court held that the defendant’s compliance with federal laws, regulations, and COVID-19 guidance did not by itself show that it acted under a federal officer. The defendant did not demonstrate that its role in providing care went beyond complying with federal requirements. Removal therefore was not proper under the federal-officer removal statute.

On federal-question jurisdiction, the court held that the complaint did not necessarily raise a federal issue. The defendant’s argument that the court would need to interpret the PREP Act concerned a potential defense, not an essential element of Torres’s state-law claims. The court therefore rejected this basis for removal as well.

Disposition

Judge Cathy Seibel granted Torres’s motion to remand. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion and remand the case to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County. The opinion did not decide the merits of Torres’s underlying claims.