FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A U G 26, 2008 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 15529

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 07 -004 12 -C V -2-K D -C D E L L A D I A L , A . C . J O H N S O N , N A N C Y N O R F L E E T , C O N S T A N C E T A Y L O R , A B R A H A M W A S H I N G T O N , G E O R G I A M . W O O D S , L A U R A B . W A S H I N G T O N , P la in tif f s - A p p e lla n ts , v ersu s H E A L T H S P R I N G O F A L A B A M A , I N C ., M A R C U S T R O T T E R , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e So u th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 26, 2008)Honora ble Donald M. Middlebrooks, United States D istrict Judg e for the Southern * District of F lorida, sitting by designation. 2 B ef ore W IL S O N and P R Y O R , C i rc ui tJudg es , and M ID D L E B R O O K S , D i stri ct * Judg e. P R Y O R , C i rc ui tJudg e: T hi s app ea l pres ent s the qu es t i on w hether acom pl ai ntabou tcond uct re gu l at ed by the M edi care A ctfi l ed i n a st at e c ou rtm aybe re m ov ed t o a fe dera l c ourt . S e ve n i ndi vi dua l be ne f i c i a r i e s of

the f e de r a l M e di c a r e pr ogr a m f i l e d a com pl ai ntagai nstH ea l thspri ng of A l abam a, Inc. , the adm i ni stra t or of a M edi care A dv ant age heal th-i nsurance pl an. H ea l thspri ng re m ov ed the ca se t o a fe dera l court a n d a s s e rte d th a t th e c o m p la in t is “f o u n d e d o n ac la im o rr ig h t a r is in g u n d e rth e . .

. l aw s o f th e U n i t ed S t at es, ” 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 4 4 1 , b ecau se i tassert s cl ai m s th atari se unde rthe M e di c a r e A c t . T he di s tr i c tc ourtc onc l ude d tha ta tl e a s tone c l a i m f or re l i ef ar i se s und erfe dera l l aw because the fe dera l M edi care A ct“ w ho l l y di spl ac es the s t a t e - l a w c aus e of

a c t i on thr ough c om pl e t e pr e e m pt i on, ” B e ne f i c i a l N a t ’ l B a nk v. A nde r s on, 539 U . S . 1, 6, 124 S . C t . 2058, 2062 ( 2003) , a nd de ni e d the benefi ci ar i es ’ m ot i on t o rem and. B ec ause re m ov al j uri sdi ct i on exi st s onl y w here

“ the di stri ctcourt s have ori gi nal j uri sdi ct i on , ” 28 U . S . C . § 1 44 1, and the M edi care st atut e “ stri ps fe dera l court s of pri m ary f eder al -quest i on subj ec tm att er ju r is d ic tio n ” o v e rc la im s th a t a r is e u n d e rth e M e d ic a r e A c t, C o c h r a n v . U .S . H e a lth3

C a r e F i n. A dm i n. , 291 F . 3d 775, 779 ( 11th C i r . 2002) , w e r e ve r s e w i th i ns truc t i ons to th e d is tr ic t c o u rt to r e m a n d th e c a s e to th e s ta te c o u rt. I . B AC KG RO UN D D el l a D i al , A . C . John son, N ancyP ort erN orfl ee t , C on st ance T ay l or, A braham W as hi ng t on , L auraB . W as hi ng t on , and G eorgi a M . W oo ds ar e benefi ci ar i es of M edi care , a s oci al -s ec uri ty program thatprov i des f e de r a l l y - s ubs i di z e d he a l th i ns ur a nc e a nd i s a dm i ni s t e r e d bythe D e pa rtm e ntof H e a lth a n d H u m a n S e rv ic e s th r o u g h th e C e n te r s f o rM e d ic a r e a n d M e d ic a id S ervi ce s. T he benefi t s avai l abl e und erM edi care ar e pre sc ri bed b y l aw and d i vi ded i nt o f our“ pa rt s . ” P a rtA pr ovi de s hos pi t a l , s ki l l e d nur s i ng, hom e he a l th, a nd h o s p ic e c a r e b e n e f

its . P a rt B p r o v id e s p h y s ic ia n a n d o th e ro u tp a tie n t s e rv ic e s . P artD prov i des outpat i entpres cr i pt i on drug benefi t s. T he tra di t i on al M edi care structure a l l ow s benef

i ci ar i es ac ce ss t o P art s A , B , and D as se para t e benefi t s. P art C p r o v id e s b e n e f

ic ia r ie s w ith a n o p tio n to in s te a d o b ta in th e b e n e f its a v a ilab le un der P art s A and B as w el l as som e a dd i t i on al benefi t s throu gh a hea l th i nsurance p la n , k n o w n a s a“M e d ic a r e A d v a n ta g e P la n ,” a d m in is te r e db yap r iv a te c o m p a n y . S ee general l y M atthew s v. L ea vi tt , 45 2 F . 3d 14 5, 14 7 n . 1 (2d C i r. 20 06 ). D i a l a nd the othe rs i x pe r s ons ha d be e n be ne f i c i a r i e s unde rP a rt s A a nd B of M edi care un t i l 20 05 , w hen they e nrol l ed i n a M edi care A dv ant age P l an4

a dm i ni s t e r e d byH e a l ths pr i ng, know n a s the “ S e ni or s F i r s t ” pl a n. A c c or di ng t o the com pl ai nt , an agentof H ea l thspri ng m etw i th eac h b enef i ci ary. T he benefi ci ar i es e n r o lle d in th e S e n io r s F ir s t p la n b a s e d o n r e p r e s e n ta tio n s m a d e b yth e a g e n t. T he benefi ci ar i es fi l ed a c om pl ai ntagai nstH ea l thspri ng i n the C i rc ui tC ou rt of P erryC ou nty, A l abam a. T he com pl ai ntas se rt s tw el ve coun t s, w hi ch ar e phr a s e d a s c l a i m s unde rA l aba m al a w . T he c om pl a i nta l s o s t a t e s tha t“ [ t ] he P l a i nt i f f s m a ke no c l a i m s pur s ua ntt o a nyF e de r a l L a w , nordo the P l a i nt i f f s m a ke an y cl ai m s w h i ch w o u l d g i v e ri se t o F ed eral j u ri sd i ct i o n . P l ai n t i ffs’ cl ai m s ari se sol el y f rom st at e l aw . ” H e a l ths pr i ng r e m ove d the a c t i on t o the f e de r a l di s tr i c tc ourtunde rthe ge ne r a l f e de r a l - que s t i on r e m ova l s t a tut e , 28 U . S . C . § 1441( b) , a nd a s s e rt e d tha tthe benefi ci ar i es ’ cl ai m s are “ com pl et el y pre em pt ed by fe dera l l aw . ” T he di stri ctcourt de ni e d the be ne f

i c i a r i e s ’ m ot i on t o r e m a nd. T he di s tr i c tc ourtl a t e rgr a nt e d the p la in tif f s ’ ap p lic a tio n f

o ra n in te r lo c u to ryap p e a l u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 2 ( b ) . I I . STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW W e r e vi e w de novo the de ni a l of am ot i on t o r e m a nd. F l or e nc e v. C r e s c e nt R e s ., L .L .C ., 4 8 4 F .3 d 1 2 9 3 , 1 2 9 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) . I I I . DI S CU S S I ON H ea l thspri ng re m ov ed thi s a ct i on un der the generalfe dera l -quest i on re m ov al5

st atut e, w hi ch prov i des, “ A ny ci vi l ac t i on of w hi ch the di stri ctcourt s have ori gi nal j ur i s di c t i on f

ounde d on ac l a i m orr i ghta r i s i ng unde rthe C ons t i tut i on, tr e a t i e s or l a w s of the U ni t e d S t a t e s s ha l l be r e m ovabl e w i thoutr e ga r d t o the c i t i z e ns hi p or re si dence of the part i es . ” 28 U . S . C . § 1 44 1(b). T o b e r em ov abl e und erthi s s t atut e, the ac t i on m ustbe foun ded o n a cl ai m or ri gh tar i si ng un der f eder al l aw , se e R i vet v. R e gi ons B a nk of

L a . , 577 U . S . 470, 475, 118 S . C t . 921, 925 ( 1998) , a nd the ac t i on m ustbe on e of w hi ch the di stri ctcourthas ori gi nal j uri sdi ct i on , w hi ch m eans thatthe ac t i on “ ori gi nal l y c ou l d h ave been fi l ed i n federa l court . ” C a te rp illa rI n c . v . W illia m s , 4 8 2 U .S . 3 8 6 , 3 9 2 , 1 0 7 S . C t. 2 4 2 5 , 2 4 2 9 ( 1 9 8 7 ) . Or d i n a r i l y , “ [ t ] o d e t e rm i n e wh e th e r[ a ] c l a i m a r i s e s u n d e rf e d e r a l l a w, we exam i ne the ‘ w el l pl ea ded’ al l egat i on s of the com pl ai ntand i gn ore pot ent i al d e f e n s e s .” A n d e r s o n , 5 3 9 U .S . a t 6 , 1 2 3 S . C t. a t 2 0 6 2 . T h e c o m p la in t e x p r e s s ly a l l e ge s onl ys t a t e - l aw c l a i m s , butH e a l ths pr i ng a r gue s tha tthe c om pl a i ntc ont a i ns cl ai m s thatfa l l w i thi n an except i on t o the w el l -pl ea ded com pl ai ntrul e thatappl i es

“ w he n af

e de r a l s t a tut e w hol l ydi s pl a c e s the s t a t e - l a w c aus e of a c t i on thr ough com pl et e pre -e m pt i on . ” I d. at9, 12 3 S . C t . at20 63 . C om pl et e pre em pt i on occurs w he n af e de r a l s t a tut e both pr e e m pt s s t a t e s ubs t a nt i ve l a w a nd “ pr ovi de s the e x c lu s iv e c au s e o f

a c tio n f o rth e c la im a s s e rte d .” I d . a t 8 , 1 2 3 S . C t. a t 2 0 6 3 . H e a l ths pr i ng a r gue s tha tthe M e di c a r e A c te xpr e s s l ypr e e m pt s s t a t e s ubs t a nt i ve6

l aw , see 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 3 9 5 w -2 6 , an d p ro v i d es th e ex cl u si v e rem ed y fo r atl east som e of the al l egat i on s i n the com pl ai nt , se e 42 U . S . C . § 1 39 5w -22(g)(5). A no ther s t a tut e gr a nt s t o di s tr i c tc ourt s “ or i gi na l j ur i s di c t i on of a l l c i vi l a c t i ons a r i s i ng u n d e r ” f e d e r a l la w . 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 1 . I f th e c o m p la in t c o n ta in s a t le a s t o n e c la im thatar i se s und erfe dera l l aw w i thi n the m eani ng of se ct i on 13 31 , then the di stri ct c ourtha s s uppl e m e nt a l j ur i s di c t i on ove rr e l a t e d c l a i m s , e ve n i f thos e c l a i m s do not a r is e u n d e rf

e d e r a l la w . 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 6 7 ( a ) . T he w ri nk l e i n thi s app ea l i s thatthe on l y s ou rc e of f eder al l aw that H e a l ths pr i ng i nvoke s i n s upportof r e m ova l i s the M e di c a r e A c t , w hi c h “ s tr i ps f e d e r a l c o u rt s o f

p r i ma ryf

e d e r a l - q u e s t i o n s u b

j e c tma tt e rj u r i s d i c t i o n ” o v e rc l a i ms thatar i se un der thatA ct . C ochran, 39 1 F . 3d at77 9 (ci t i ng 42 U . S . C . § 4 05 (h )) . In pl ac e of thatpri m ary f

eder al -quest i on j uri sdi ct i on , the A ctprov i des f or an a dm i ni s tr a t i ve he a r i ng be f or e the S e c r e t a ryof

the D e pa rtm e ntof

H e a l th a nd H u m a n S e rv ic e s . 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 3 9 5 w - 2 2 ( g ) ( 5 ) . I f th e a m o u n t in c o n tr o v e r s yis s u f f ic ie n t, th e A c t p r o v id e s f o r“ju d ic ia l r e v ie w o f

th e S e c r e ta ry ’s f

in a l d e c is io n ” in the f orm of ac i vi l a c t i on i n f

e de r a l di s tr i c tc ourta ga i ns tthe S e c r e t a ry . I d. ; 42 U . S . C . § 405( g) . T hi s pr oc e dur e f orj udi c i a l r e vi e w of

the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve de c i s i on of the S e c r e t a ry“ t o the e xc l us i on of 28 U . S . C . § 1331, i s the s ol e a ve nue f or j udi c i a l r e vi e w f

ora l l ‘ c l a i m [ s ] a r i s i ng unde r ’ the M e di c a r e A c t . ” H e c kl e rv.7

R in g e r , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 0 2 , 6 1 4 , 1 0 4 S . C t. 2 0 2 0 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . B ec ause the pl ai nt i ff

s’ ac t i on i s nota “ ci vi l ac t i on of w hi ch the di stri ct c o u rts h a v e o r ig in a l ju r is d ic tio n ,” th e a c tio n is n o t r e m o v ab le . 2 8 U .S .C . § 1441( b) ; W i l l i a m s , 482 U . S . a t392, 107 S . C t . a t2429. W e ne e d notde c i de w h eth er th e co m p l ai n tag ai n stH eal th sp ri n g ari ses u n d er th e M ed i care A ctb ecau se the di stri ctcourtl ac ks re m ov al j uri sdi ct i on i n any event . E ven i f w e a ss um e thatat l e a s tone of

the be ne f

i c i a r i e s ’ c l a i m s f

orr e l i e f a r i s e s unde rthe M e di c a r e A c t , the d is tr ic t c o u rt w o u ld la c ks u b je c t- m a tte rju r is d ic tio n o v e rth e irc o m p la in t b e c au s e it i s nota ga i ns tthe S e c r e t a ryof the D e pa rtm e ntof

H e a l th a nd H um a n S e rvi c e s f or r e v ie w o f

a n a d m in is tr a tiv e d e c is io n .

I V . CONCL US I ON T h e d en i al o f th e p l ai n t i ffs’ m o t i o n t o rem an d i s R EVER SED . W e RE MAND to th e d is tr ic t c o u rt w ith in s tru c tio n s to r e m a n d th e c a s e to th e s ta te c o u rt f r o m w h ic h it w a s r e m o v e d . R EVER SED a nd R EM A N D ED .