Court Opinion

ID: 9555328
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-11 17:01:27.647286+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:42:20.926820
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 11 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERIC HOLLOWAY, deceased, by and                 No.   21-56011
through his legal representative and
successor-in-interest, Shalimah Abdullah;       D.C. No.
SHALIMAH ABDULLAH, individually,                2:21-cv-06106-DMG-AGR

                Plaintiffs-Appellees,
                                                MEMORANDUM*
 v.

CENTINELA SKILLED NURSING &
WELLNESS CENTRE WEST, LLC, DBA
Centinela Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre
West, a California Skilled Nursing Facility;
BRIUS MANAGEMENT CO., a California
company,

                Defendants-Appellants,

and

TAMAR RECHNITZ, an individual; DOES,
1-25, inclusive; SAIDAH HOLLOWAY, an
individual, nominal defendant; AKBAR
ABDULLAH, an individual, nominal
defendant; RIHEIM HOLLOWAY, an
individual, nominal defendant,

                Defendants.

      *
             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

                           Submitted August 11, 2023**

Before: WALLACE, O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

      Centinela Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre West, LLC, doing business as

Centinela Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre West, a California Skilled Nursing

Facility, and Brius Management Co. (collectively “Centinela”) appeal from the

district court’s order remanding this case to state court for lack of federal subject

matter jurisdiction. Centinela argues that the district court had 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 statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), because Centinela’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 Centinela

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

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

                                         2
or regulation is not enough to bring a private person within the scope of the [federal

officer removal] statute.” Id. (cleaned up). Similarly, 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, it 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 preempt

some state-law claims, any such conflict 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 not “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 available under the PREP

Act, “a federal defense is not a sufficient basis to find embedded federal question

                                          3
jurisdiction.” Id.

                                        IV

       In short, all of Centinela’s challenges are controlled by Saldana. Centinela

argues that Saldana was wrongly decided, but cites no “clearly 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.

                                         4