NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANGELINA MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. NOVATO HEALTHCARE CENTER, LLC; BRIUS MANAGEMENT CO, LLC; BRIUS, LLC, Defendants

- Appellants. No. 22

- 16312
D.C. No. 4:21

- cv - 09547

- HSG

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 20, 2023 * *

Before: WALLACE, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. Novato Healthcare Center, LLC, Brius Management Co., LLC, and Brius, LLC (collectively, “Novato”) appeal the district court’s order remanding this case to state court for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Novato argues that the

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 21 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

district court ha d three independent grounds for such jurisdiction: federal officer removal, complete preemption, and the presence of an embedded federal question

. I The district court did not have federal subject matter jurisdiction under the
federal officer removal stat ute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), because Novato ’s actions were not “taken pursuant to a federal officer’s directions.” Saldana v. Glenhaven
Healthcare LLC , 27 F.4th 679, 684 (9th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up). While Novato has demonstrated that, like the defendants in Saldana , it was subject to federal laws and regulations throughout the COVID

- 19 pandemic, “simply complying with a law or regulation is not enough to bring a private person within the scope of the [federal officer removal] statute.” Id. (cleaned up). Si milarly, recommendations, advice, and encouragement from federal entities do not amount to the type of control required
for removal under the statute. See id. at 685.
II The district court did not have federal subject matter jurisdiction under the doctrine of complete preemption because the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 247d

- 6d, 247d

- 6e, is not a complete preemption statute

—

that is, i t is not one of those “rare” statutes “where a federal statutory scheme is so comprehensive that it entirely supplants state law causes of action.” Saldana , 27 F.4th at 686 (cleaned up). While the PREP Act may preempt3

some state

- law claims, any such confli ct preemption would be an affirmative defense, and would not create federal subject matter jurisdiction. See id. at 688.
III The district court did not have embedded federal question jurisdiction because
the state

- law causes of action in the complaint do n ot “necessarily” raise “substantial” federal issues that are “actually disputed” and “capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal

- state balance approved by Congress.” Id. at 688 (cleaned up). Although a federal defense may be avai lable under the PREP Act, “a federal defense is not a sufficient basis to find embedded federal question jurisdiction.” Id

. IV In short, all of Novato’s challenges are controlled by Saldana . Novato argues that Saldana was wrongly decided, but cites no “cle arly irreconcilable” intervening authority permitting us to overrule it. Miller v. Gammie , 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Accordingly, we apply Saldana

. AFFIRMED.