Court Opinion

ID: 9941674
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-16 18:01:20.979833+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:51.500110
License: Public Domain

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                          FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                               ____________

                                    No. 22-2515
                                    ___________

      JAMES LE CARRE, individually and as Administrator and Administrator
ad Prosequendum of the Estate of Alexander Olin; ESTATE OF ALEXANDER OLIN

                                           v.

ALLIANCE HC II LLC, d/b/a Andover Subacute and Rehabilitation II, d/b/a Woodland
           Behavioral and Nursing Center; CHAIM SCHEINBAUM;
   LOUIS SCHWARTZ; ANDOVER SUBACUTE AND REHABILITATION II;
     WOODLAND BEHAVIORAL AND NURSING CENTER; JANE DOE
      NURSES 1–50; JANE DOE NURSES; TECHNICIANS; CNAS AND
     PARAMEDICAL EMPLOYEES 1–50; JOHN DOE PHYSICIANS 1–50;
           RICHARD DOES 1–10; JANE DOE DIETICIANS 1–50;
             ABC CORPORATION AND ABC PARTNERSHIP,

         Alliance HC II LLC d/b/a Woodland Behavioral and Nursing Center
        f/d/b/a Andover Subacute and Rehabilitation II (i/p/a separate entities,
          Andover Subacute and Rehabilitation II, Woodland Behavioral and
              Nursing Center); Chaim Scheinbaum; and Louis Schwartz,
                                                                 Appellants
                                   ____________

                   On Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of New Jersey
                              (D.C. No. 3-21-cv-20226)
                    District Judge: Honorable Michael A. Shipp
                                    ____________

                                    No. 22-3321
                                    ___________

       PASQUALE IANNUZZELLI, individually; ESTATE OF ELIZABETH
          IANNUZZELLI, Pasquale Iannuzzelli as General Administrator
               and Administrator ad Prosequendum of the Estate
                                    v.

   ALLIANCE HC II LLC, d/b/a Andover Subacute and Rehabilitation II,
      d/b/a Woodland Behavioral and Nursing Center; WOODLAND
   BEHAVIORAL AND NURSING CENTER; ANDOVER SUBACUTE
AND REHABILITATION II; CHAIM SCHEINBAUM; LOUIS SCHWARTZ;
    JANE DOE NURSES 1–50; JANE ROE NURSES, TECHNICIANS,
CNAS AND PARAMEDICAL EMPLOYEES 1–50; JOHN DOE PHYSICIANS
   1–50; RICHARD ROES 1–10; JANE DOE DIETICIANS 1–50; ABC
  CORPORATION AND ABC PARTNERSHIP (the aforesaid names being
             fictitious and their true names being unknown),

      Alliance HC II LLC d/b/a Andover Subacute and Rehabilitation II,
    d/b/a Woodland Behavioral and Nursing Center; Woodland Behavioral
         and Nursing Center; Andover Subacute and Rehabilitation II;
                  Chaim Scheinbaum; and Louis Schwartz,
                                                  Appellants
                              ____________

              On Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the District of New Jersey
                         (D.C. No. 3-22-cv-04473)
               District Judge: Honorable Michael A. Shipp
                               ____________

                              No. 22-3322
                              ___________

                  PATRICIA A. FIORE; JOHN P. FIORE

                                    v.

     ALLIANCE HC II LLC, d/b/a Andover Subacute Rehabilitation II,
      d/b/a Woodland Behavioral and Nursing Center; WOODLAND
   BEHAVIORAL AND NURSING CENTER; ANDOVER SUBACUTE
AND REHABILITATION II; CHAIM SCHEINBAUM; LOUIS SCHWARTZ;
    JANE DOE NURSES 1–50; JANE ROE NURSES, TECHNICIANS,
CNAS AND PARAMEDICAL EMPLOYEES 1–50; JOHN DOE PHYSICIANS
   1–50; RICHARD ROES 1–10; JANE DOE DIETICIANS 1–50; ABC
  CORPORATION AND ABC PARTNERSHIP (the aforesaid names being
             fictitious and their true names being unknown),

                                    2
       Alliance HC II LLC d/b/a Andover Subacute and Rehabilitation II,
           d/b/a Woodland Behavioral and Nursing Center; Woodland
               Behavioral and Nursing Center; Andover Subacute
        and Rehabilitation II; Chaim Scheinbaum; and Louis Schwartz,
                                                            Appellants
                                ____________

                On Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the District of New Jersey
                           (D.C. No. 3-22-cv-04474)
                 District Judge: Honorable Freda L. Wolfson
                                 ____________

                                 No. 23-1807
                                 ___________

                      SUSAN M. MOOR, individually;
              ESTATE OF JOHN J. WATTERS, Susan M. Moor
   as General Administrator and Administrator ad Prosequendum of the Estate

                                        v.

      ALLIANCE HC II LLC, d/b/a Andover Subacute Rehabilitation I,
             d/b/a Woodland Behavioral and Nursing Center;
        WOODLAND BEHAVIORAL AND NURSING CENTER;
ANDOVER SUBACUTE AND REHABILITATION II; CHAIM SCHEINBAUM;
   LOUIS SCHWARTZ; JANE DOE NURSES 1–50; JANE ROE NURSES,
TECHNICIANS, CNAS AND PARAMEDICAL EMPLOYEES 1–50; JOHN DOE
 PHYSICIANS 1–50; RICHARD ROES 1–10; JANE DOE DIETICIANS 1–50;
 ABC CORPORATION AND ABC PARTNERSHIP (the aforesaid names being
             fictitious and their true names being unknown),

      Alliance HC II LLC d/b/a Woodland Behavioral and Nursing Center
     f/d/b/a Andover Subacute and Rehabilitation II (i/p/a separate entities,
       Andover Subacute and Rehabilitation II, Woodland Behavioral and
           Nursing Center); Chaim Scheinbaum; and Louis Schwartz,
                                                               Appellants
                                ____________

                On Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the District of New Jersey
                           (D.C. No. 3-22-cv-04472)
                 District Judge: Honorable Georgette Castner

                                        3
                                      ____________

                      Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
                                  February 8, 2024

            Before: HARDIMAN, SCIRICA, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges.

                                (Filed: February 16, 2024)

                                      ____________

                                        OPINION *
                                      ____________

HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.

       In these four consolidated cases, entities and individuals associated with a New

Jersey nursing home (collectively, Alliance) appeal the orders of three judges of the

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. All three judges remanded to

state court personal injury actions brought by the legal representatives of nursing home

residents who died from COVID-19. We will affirm.

                                             I

       While living in a nursing home operated by Alliance, Alexander Olin, Elizabeth

Iannuzzelli, John Fiore, and John Watters contracted COVID-19 and tragically died. Each

of the decedents’ estates (the Estates) sued Alliance in New Jersey state court. The

Estates alleged state statutory violations, medical malpractice, negligence, and gross

negligence based on Alliance’s failure to properly use and sanitize personal protective

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

                                             4
equipment and provide adequate medical care. Alliance sought to remove the actions to

federal court. After the Estates successfully moved to remand the cases to state court,

Alliance timely appealed.

                                             II 1

       As in the District Court, Alliance now cites three bases for jurisdiction:

(1) complete preemption under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness

(PREP) Act, (2) the existence of an embedded substantial federal question under Grable

& Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing, 545 U.S. 308

(2005), and (3) federal officer removal doctrine. For the reasons that follow, we hold that

these arguments are foreclosed by our reasoning in Maglioli v. Alliance HC Holdings

LLC, 16 F.4th 393 (3d Cir. 2021).

                                              A

       “The PREP Act provides ‘an exclusive Federal cause of action against a covered

person for death or serious physical injury proximately caused by willful misconduct.’”

Id. at 401 (emphasis added) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d(d)(1)). As we emphasized in

Maglioli, willful misconduct is “a separate cause of action from negligence.” Id. at 411.

Because “we must look beyond the [Estates’] claims,” “[t]he question is whether [the

Estates’] allegations . . . could have been brought” under the statute. Id. (cleaned up).

1
  We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) because these cases were
removed under the federal officer removal statute, and we can review all grounds raised
for removal. BP P.L.C. v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., 141 S. Ct. 1532, 1538 (2021).
“We review issues of subject-matter jurisdiction de novo, including a court’s decision to
remand for a lack of jurisdiction.” Maglioli v. Alliance HC Holdings LLC, 16 F.4th 393,
403 (3d Cir. 2021) (cleaned up).
                                              5
Alliance argues that the Estates pleaded “allegations of willful misconduct that

substantially duplicate the elements of a willful misconduct claim under the PREP

Act . . . :

        (1) ‘an act or omission that is taken’;
        (2) ‘intentionally to achieve a wrongful purpose;’
        (3) ‘knowingly without legal or factual justification; and’
        (4) ‘in disregard of a known or obvious risk that is so great as to make it
        highly probable that the harm will outweigh the benefit.’”

Alliance Br. 26 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d(c)(1)(A)); see also Alliance Consol. Br.

34.2 For example, Alliance describes the Estates as alleging that “Andover knew COVID-

19 was highly contagious and deadly and that its residents were at a greater risk of

contracting COVID-19, yet consciously disregarded the health and safety of its

residents.” Alliance Br. 26–27 (citing App. 59, 70–71, 76, 78, 87, 90, 92, 94–95, 97, 100–

02); see also Alliance Consol. Br. 35–36. Similarly, according to Alliance, the Estates

“allege[d] that Andover acted ‘intentionally’ to achieve the wrongful purpose of

increasing profits over patient safety.” Alliance Consol. Br. 35 (citing Consol. App. 103,

113, 144, 221, 230–31, 261, 338, 347–48, 379); see also Alliance Br. 28.

        Alliance’s characterizations are mistaken, largely for the reasons stated by the

District Court. “Adding conclusory adverbs to allegations does not morph a negligence

action into one for willful misconduct.” App. 10 (Shipp, J., Case No. 22-2515). Willful

misconduct is “construed as establishing a standard for liability that is more stringent

2
  On appeal, Alliance filed two briefs, one for Case No. 22-2515 and one for Case Nos.
22-3321, 22-3322, and 23-1807. We refer to the former as “Alliance Br.” and the latter as
“Alliance Consol. Br.” In the same manner, Alliance filed two appendices, which we
refer to as “App.” and “Consol. App.”
                                              6
than a standard of negligence in any form or recklessness.” 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d(c)(1)(B)

(emphasis added). See also Consol. App. 32 (Wolfson, J., Case No. 22-3322) (“[T]he

Complaint does not assert a claim for ‘willful misconduct,’ nor do [the Estates] represent

any differently in their briefing.”); App. 44 (Castner, J., Case No. 23-1807) (“[The

Estates’] use of ‘willful’ and ‘intentional’ relate to [the Estates’] claim of gross

negligence and [Alliance’s] alleged breach of a duty to provide proper care.”). Like the

District Court, we cannot infer from vague and imprecise references to “intentional” or

“conscious” conduct that the Estates’ complaints alleged that Alliance had acted

“intentionally to achieve a wrongful purpose” or “knowingly without legal or factual

justification.” 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d(c)(1)(A)(i), (ii). Therefore, the Estates could not have

asserted a willful misconduct claim under the PREP Act. So the statute does not preempt

their state law claims and cannot confer jurisdiction in this case.

                                              B

       Under the federal officer removal statute, federal courts have jurisdiction over

civil actions directed at “[t]he United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any

person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof . . . for or

relating to any act under color of such office.” 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). In Maglioli, we

rejected the contention that nursing homes act under federal officers merely by

complying with federal rules and regulations. See 16 F.4th at 404. We instead reasoned

that nursing homes must be involved in “an effort to assist, or to help carry out, the

duties or tasks of [a] federal superior.” Id. at 404–05 (quoting Watson v. Philip Morris

Cos., 551 U.S. 142, 152 (2007)). Attempting to distinguish these cases from Maglioli,

                                               7
Alliance argues that the Estates allege “facts demonstrating it was the federal

government’s obligation to address the spread of COVID-19 in nursing homes,”

specifically that “[t]he National Guard and the New Jersey Department of Health assisted

in Andover’s operations to address the COVID-19 outbreak at Andover.” Alliance Br. 63

(citing App. 69–70, 73–74, 125–26); see also Alliance Consol. Br. 71–72. But this

allegation no more shows that Alliance has been “delegated federal authority” or

“provide[s] a service that the federal government would otherwise provide” than the

arguments it proffered in Maglioli. 16 F.4th at 405. So we lack jurisdiction under the

federal officer removal statute for the same reason we articulated in Maglioli.

                                               C

       “[F]ederal jurisdiction over a state law claim will lie if a federal issue is:

(1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution

in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.”

Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 258 (2013). Alliance argues that federal preemption is

“necessarily raised” in the Estates’ complaints. But because this federal defense “does not

appear on the face of” those complaints, it “does not authorize removal to federal court.”

Maglioli, 16 F.4th at 413 (quoting Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987)).

                                       *       *      *

       Alliance’s attempts to sidestep Maglioli are unpersuasive at best. And to the extent

they recycle, often verbatim, arguments we have already rebuffed, they border on

improper. We again reject Alliance’s attempt to transform “garden-variety state-law

claims” into a federal case. Id. We will affirm.

                                               8