Court Opinion

ID: 9367418
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-31 19:00:39.791456+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:00.175199
License: Public Domain

FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                               JAN 31 2023
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                          MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                             U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

VELANTA MONIQUE BABBITT, in her                  No.    18-56576
individual capacity and as parent and
guardian of B. D., a minor,                      D.C. No.
                                                 2:18-cv-06528-DMG-FFM
              Plaintiff-Appellee,                Central District of California,
                                                 Los Angeles
 v.

 DIGNITY HEALTH, a California                    ORDER
corporation,

              Defendant-Appellee,

  v.

SEBHAT AFEWORK, M.D.,

              Defendant-Appellant,

  v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

              Movant-Appellee.

Before: KLEINFELD, NGUYEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

       The memorandum disposition filed August 10, 2020, is withdrawn and

replaced with the disposition filed concurrently with this order.
                                                                              FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                               JAN 31 2023
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                            U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VELANTA MONIQUE BABBITT, in her                  No.   18-56576
individual capacity and as parent and
guardian of B. D., a minor,                      D.C. No.
                                                 2:18-cv-06528-DMG-FFM
              Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.                                              MEMORANDUM*

 DIGNITY HEALTH, a California
corporation,

              Defendant-Appellee,

  v.

SEBHAT AFEWORK, M.D.,

              Defendant-Appellant,

  v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

              Movant-Appellee.

       *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Central District of California
                      Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding

                       Argued and Submitted March 6, 2020
                     Submission Withdrawn September 2, 2021
                          Resubmitted January 31, 2023
                               Pasadena, California

Before: KLEINFELD, NGUYEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.**

      We decided this case previously, holding that we lacked jurisdiction to

review the district court order remanding it to state court. See K.C. v. Khalifa, 816

F. App’x. 111 (9th Cir. 2020). We held the mandate and withdrew the case from

submission pending the Supreme Court’s decision in BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City

Counsel of Baltimore, 141 S. Ct. 1532 (2021), and its ruling on Afework’s petition

for certiorari, Afework v. Babbitt, 141 S. Ct. 2754 (2021). After the Court decided

BP, and denied Afework’s petition for certiorari, we ordered supplemental

briefing. Now, with the benefit of the BP decision and the parties’ supplemental

briefing, we decide the case again. Our conclusion is that the outcome is not

changed.

      **
         The original panel, consisting of Judge Kleinfeld, Judge Nguyen, and
Judge Pauley, heard oral argument on March 6, 2020. Judge Pauley died on July 6,
after our earlier decision, but before we withdrew the case from submission, and
Judge Bade was drawn to replace him. She has read the briefs, reviewed the
record, and watched the oral argument.
                                          2
      This case was filed in state court and removed to federal court. The district

court ordered it remanded to state court.1 Ordinarily, remands are unreviewable

under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), but there is a statutory exception to that limitation if the

case was removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1442 (federal officer removal). Afework

removed the case under that section and also 42 U.S.C. § 233 (public health service

officers, and employees and persons deemed to be public health service employees

under 42 U.S.C. § 233(g)(1)). In BP, the Court held that if a case is removed under

§ 1442, and later remanded, we have jurisdiction to review the entire remand order,

not just the portion of the order addressing § 1442. 141 S. Ct. at 1538. And, it

explained, rather than construing the § 1447 exception to nonreviewability

narrowly, as some courts had held, the statute should be given a “fair reading.” Id.

at 1538 (internal quotations omitted).

      The district court held that the § 1442 removal was late. A notice of removal

must, under 28 U.S.C. § 1446, be filed within 30 days of receipt by the defendant

of service or receipt of a copy of the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). The date of

service or receipt was contested. Afework declared that he was never served, and

      1
        Previously, there were other defendants from a consolidated case on this
appeal, including Dr. Khalifa, but a state court dismissed the claims against Khalifa
with prejudice and the other claims in the consolidated case were settled, so only
Dr. Afework’s attempt at removal remains on this appeal. K.C. v. Khalifa, 857 F.
App’x. 958, 958-59 (9th Cir. 2021).
                                           3
learned of the case from a letter to him by co-defendant Dignity Health on July 27,

2018. The plaintiff, Babbitt, provided a proof of service stating that Afework was

served March 26, 2018. That was more than 30 days before the July 27 removal.

The district court found that service was in fact accomplished March 26, and we

cannot conclude that this finding is clearly erroneous. See S.E.C. v. Internet Sols.

for Bus. Inc., 509 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[T]he district court’s factual

findings regarding jurisdiction are reviewed for clear error.”) (quotation marks and

citation omitted)). Accordingly, the removal, insofar as it was based on § 1442,

was too late, as the district court concluded.

      As for the § 233 removal, the statute provides that the Attorney General

must appear in the state court where the action was filed within 15 days of being

notified of the filing and advise the court whether the individual or entity has been

deemed to be a public health service employee. § 233(l)(1). If the Attorney

General fails to appear, the entity or individual may remove the action.

§ 233(l)(2). Afework removed the case eleven days after giving notice of it to the

Attorney General. The district court accordingly remanded the § 233 removal on

the basis that it was too early, denying the Attorney General his 15 days to appear

and advise. It was, so we affirm on this ground as well. Afework presents good

arguments for why the timing provisions of § 233 so applied undermine the

                                           4
purpose of the statute, and that the Attorney General did not comply with his

obligations under § 233, but we are compelled by the language of the statute to

conclude that when he removed the case, the statutory condition precedent “if the

Attorney General fails to appear within the time period prescribed” was not met.

§ 233(l)(2).

      AFFIRMED.

                                         5