Case: 21-10477 Document: 00516233741 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/10/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 10, 2022
No. 21-10477 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Troy Mitchell, Individually and on Behalf of the
Estate of Emma Mitchell,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Advanced HCS, L.L.C., doing business as Wedgewood Nursing
Home; Wedgewood Rehab; Nursing GS, L.L.C.; TOM GS,
L.L.C.,
Defendants—Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:21-CV-155
Before Owen, Chief Judge, and Clement and Engelhardt, Circuit
Judges.
Kurt D. Engelhardt, Circuit Judge:
Federal courts have limited jurisdiction. We may only adjudicate cases
and controversies to which the federal “judicial Power” extends. U.S.
Const. art. III; see Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 372
(1978) (explaining that “Acts of Congress” likewise limit the jurisdiction of
federal courts). Typically, this power does not extend to state-law disputes
between citizens of the same state. See
28 U.S.C. § 1331;
28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Case: 21-10477 Document: 00516233741 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/10/2022
No. 21-10477
Defendants-Appellants ask us to exercise power over such a dispute. But the
trio of jurisdictional doctrines they invoke are inapplicable here, so we
cannot. 1 We therefore AFFIRM the district court and REMAND with
directions to further REMAND this case to state court.
I
Emma Mitchell, a resident of Wedgewood nursing home, tragically
passed away in May 2020 from pneumonia, heart disease, and complications
from COVID-19. Plaintiff-Appellee Troy Mitchell (“Mitchell”), son of
Emma Mitchell and executor of her estate, sued Defendants-Appellants
(collectively “Wedgewood”) in Texas state court in December 2020.
Mitchell alleged state-law causes of action for medical negligence, corporate
negligence, and gross negligence. There is no dispute that both parties are
citizens of Texas.
Wedgewood removed the case to federal district court. It argued that
the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (“PREP Act” or
“the Act”) completely preempted Mitchell’s state-law claims and created
federal jurisdiction, that it could remove under the federal officer removal
statute, and that jurisdiction existed under the Grable doctrine. Mitchell
moved to remand back to state court. The district court granted the motion,
holding that the Act did not completely preempt Mitchell’s state-law claims.
1
At least two other federal Courts of Appeals have addressed near-identical
arguments in near-identical cases and have likewise rejected them. In Maglioli v. All. HC
Holdings LLC, 16 F.4th 393, 400 (3d Cir. 2021), the Third Circuit held as we do here and
later declined to take the case en banc. Maglioli v. All. HC Holdings LLC, No. 20-2833 (3d.
Cir. Feb. 7, 2022). After oral argument in this case, the Ninth Circuit decided Saldana v.
Glenhaven Healthcare LLC, --- F.4th ----,
2022 WL 518989 (9th Cir. Feb. 22, 2022), holding
likewise. Although not binding on this court, we find the reasoning of our sister circuits
both sound and persuasive, particularly given the similarities between those cases and this
one.
2
Case: 21-10477 Document: 00516233741 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/10/2022
No. 21-10477
Mitchell v. Advanced HCS, LLC, No. 4:21-CV-00155-P, 2021 WL 1247884,
at *4–5 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 5, 2021). The court did not, however, address
Wedgewood’s alternate bases for removal. See generally
id.
Because this appeal concerns jurisdiction alone, we review the district
court’s holding de novo. Tenth St. Residential Ass’n v. City of Dallas, 968 F.3d
492, 498 (5th Cir. 2020).
II
We first address whether the PREP Act completely preempts
Mitchell’s state-law negligence claims. Generally, a defendant may only
remove a case to federal court if the plaintiff could have originally filed the
case there. 28 USC § 1441(a). If a dispute does not satisfy diversity
jurisdiction then, subject to the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” a complaint
must raise a federal question to be removable. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams,
482
U.S. 386, 392 (1987). That federal question must be “presented on the face”
of the complaint to satisfy the rule.
Id.
Complete preemption is an exception to the well-pleaded complaint
rule. 2 It creates federal jurisdiction if Congress, by statute, “completely preempt[s] a particular area [such] that any civil complaint raising [the] select
group of claims is necessarily federal in character.” Metro. Life Ins., 481 U.S.
at 63–64; see GlobeRanger Corp. v. Software AG, 691 F.3d 702, 705 (5th Cir.
2
Complete preemption should not be confused with ordinary or defensive
preemption. Complete preemption gives federal courts the power to adjudicate a case in
the first place, Elam v. Kan. Cty. S. Ry. Co., 635 F.3d 796, 803 (5th Cir. 2011), while
defensive preemption is “an affirmative defense that a defendant can invoke ‘to defeat a
plaintiff’s state-law claim on the merits by asserting the supremacy of federal law.’” Spear
Mktg. Inc. v. BancorpSouth Bank,
844 F.3d 464, 467 n.3 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting Cmty. State
Bank v. Strong,
651 F.3d 1241, 1261 n.16 (11th Cir. 2011)). Because defenses are not raised
on the face of the complaint, defensive preemption does not create federal question
jurisdiction. Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor,
481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987).
3
Case: 21-10477 Document: 00516233741 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/10/2022
No. 21-10477
2012). That happens when a federal law creates an “exclusive cause of
action” and “set[s] forth procedures and remedies governing that cause of
action,” such that it “wholly displaces the state-law cause of action.”
Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 8 (2003).
To establish complete preemption, Wedgewood must therefore show
that: “(1) the statute contains a civil enforcement provision that creates a
cause of action that both replaces and protects the analogous area of state
law; (2) there is a specific jurisdictional grant to the federal courts for
enforcement of the right;” and (3) there is a clear congressional intent that
the federal cause of action be exclusive. Gutierrez v. Flores, 543 F.3d 248, 252
(5th Cir. 2008) (quoting Johnson v. Baylor Univ.,
214 F.3d 630, 632 (5th Cir.
2000)). Once established, the question becomes whether Mitchell “could
have brought” his state-law claims under the federal cause of action. Aetna
Health Inc. v. Davila,
542 U.S. 200, 210 (2004). If so, they are completely
preempted.
A
Because this issue turns on the provisions of the PREP Act, we must
consider those provisions. 3 The Act contains a broad grant of immunity from
3
Wedgewood cites various agency documents, most notably an Advisory Opinion
by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of the General Counsel, in
support of its argument that the PREP Act completely preempts state-law negligence
claims. See Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Off. of the Gen. Counsel,
Advisory Opinion 21-01 on the Pub. Readiness and Emergency
Preparedness Act Scope of Preemption Provision 2–3, (Jan. 8, 2021). But
agency interpretations of “[t]he scope of judicial review” are not entitled to Chevron
deference. Smith v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1765, 1778 (2019); see Texas v. EPA,
829 F.3d 405,
417 (5th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted) (holding that this court has the exclusive power to
determine its own jurisdiction and declining to afford deference); see generally Chevron,
U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
467 U.S. 837 (1984). Nor are these
interpretations entitled to Skidmore deference. See generally Skidmore v. Swift & Co.,
323
U.S. 134 (1944). As the district court noted, the Advisory Opinion “cites no cases”
4
Case: 21-10477 Document: 00516233741 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/10/2022
No. 21-10477
any suit “for loss[es] caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from
the administration to or the use by an individual of a covered
countermeasure.” 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d(a)(1). Thus, there must be a “causal
relationship” between an injury and the “administration to or use by an
individual of a covered countermeasure.” Id. § (a)(2)(B). These protections
only apply, however, if the Secretary of the Department of Health and
Human Services (the “Secretary” of “HHS”) makes a declaration through
the Federal Register, identifies a current or impending public health
emergency, identifies covered countermeasures, states that the immunity
provision is in effect, and meets other statutory requirements in the
declaration. Id. § (b). Courts lack jurisdiction to review any action by the
Secretary in making a declaration. Id. § (b)(7). Likewise, declarations
preempt state law. Id. § (b)(8).
For most who suffer an injury that falls under the immunity provision,
the sole remedy is compensation from the “Covered Countermeasures
Process Fund,” as determined by an administrative process. 42 U.S.C.
§ 247d-6e(a). This is likewise an exclusive remedy. Id. § (d)(4). There is an
exception for “death or serious physical injury proximately caused by willful
misconduct.” Id. § (d)(1). The United States District Court for the District
of Columbia has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate these willful-misconduct
claims. Id. § (e)(1). Generally, claimants must first exhaust the administrative
remedies discussed above before going to court. 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6e(d)(1).
supporting its conclusion. Mitchell, 2021 WL 1247884, at *4. Worse still, a “growing
consensus” of district courts—and the Third Circuit—rejected the agency’s position.
Id.
at *2–3 (gathering cases); see Maglioli,
16 F.4th at 404. These documents therefore lack the
“power to persuade” and we do not afford them any deference. Cf. Skidmore,
323 U.S. at
140.
5
Case: 21-10477 Document: 00516233741 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/10/2022
No. 21-10477
The Act defines willful misconduct as “an act or omission that is taken
intentionally to achieve a wrongful purpose; knowingly without legal or
factual justification; and 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.”
42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d(c)(1)(A) (cleaned up). The Act also provides that the
definition of willful misconduct “shall be construed as establishing a standard
for liability that is more stringent than a standard of negligence in any form
or recklessness.” Id. § (c)(1)(B).
In sum, once the Secretary promulgates a declaration, most injuries
caused by a covered person administering a covered countermeasure are
subject to the sole remedy of a compensation fund. There is a narrow
exception for willful-misconduct claims, which proceed under an exclusive
federal cause of action in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia, but only after the claimant has exhausted administrative remedies.
B
The Act does not completely preempt Mitchell’s state-law negligence
claims. First, the only cause of action it creates is for willful misconduct. See
42 U.S.C. § 247d-6e(d)(1). Assuming—without deciding—that the willful-misconduct cause of action is completely preemptive, the question is whether
Mitchell “could have brought” the instant claims under that cause of action.
Aetna Health, 542 U.S. at 210. He could not. The Act clearly states that its
willful-misconduct cause of action creates “a standard for liability that is
more stringent than a standard of negligence in any form or recklessness.” 42
U.S.C. § 247d-6d(c)(1)(B) (emphasis added). Mitchell only asserts
negligence causes of action. Thus, the existence of the willful-misconduct
cause of action cannot completely preempt his claims. See Maglioli, 16 F.4th
at 409–10 (concluding that the Act is completely preemptive as to willful-misconduct claims, but not as to state-law negligence claims).
6
Case: 21-10477 Document: 00516233741 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/10/2022
No. 21-10477
Second, the compensation fund that the Act creates is not completely
preemptive under this court’s precedents. To begin, a “compensation fund
is not a cause of action.” Id. at 411. It may be a civil-enforcement provision,
but such provisions must nevertheless “create[] a cause of action.”
Gutierrez, 543 F.3d at 252. As the Third Circuit noted, “neither the Supreme
Court nor any circuit court has extended complete preemption to a statute
because it created a compensation fund.” Maglioli,
16 F.4th at 412. We
decline to do so here.
Assuming arguendo that the compensation fund suffices as a cause of
action, the Act nevertheless does not create “a specific jurisdictional grant to
the federal courts for enforcement of the right.” Gutierrez, 543 F.3d at 252.
Instead, the Secretary oversees administration of the fund. 42 U.S.C. § 247d-
6e(a–b). Worse, the statute expressly withdraws jurisdiction from any court,
state or federal, concerning “any action [taken] by the Secretary” in doing
so. Id. § (b)(5)(C). The Act therefore fails to meet the second prong of our
complete-preemption test.
At oral argument, counsel for Wedgewood highlighted Elam as a case
supporting complete preemption here. Elam is instructive, but not in the way
Wedgewood imagines. That case concerned the Interstate Commerce
Commission Termination Act (“ICCTA”). Elam, 635 F.3d at 804. The
ICCTA created the Surface Transportation Board (“STB”) and gave that
body “exclusive federal regulatory jurisdiction” to regulate the railroads
“and [created] exclusive federal remedies” for violations of those
regulations.
Id. But those exclusive federal remedies include, inter alia, a
general remedy for damages that “may” be brought as “a complaint with the
Board” or as “a civil action.”
49 U.S.C. § 11704(c)(1). Jurisdiction over those
civil actions resides with “the district courts of the United States” and
“State court[s] of general jurisdiction having jurisdiction of the parties.”
Id.
§ (d)(1). In other words, the STB makes the rules, and an injured party can
7
Case: 21-10477 Document: 00516233741 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/10/2022
No. 21-10477
choose whether to file a complaint with the STB or have their day in court.
The plaintiff’s claim in Elam was completely preempted because it was based
on a state statute, “the effect of [which] [wa]s to economically regulate
[railroad] switching operations. Elam, 635 F.3d at 807 (5th Cir. 2011). The
ICCTA granted sole authority to do so to the STB, so that claim was
completely preempted.
The plain text of the PREP Act, as discussed above, compels the
opposite conclusion. Like the ICCTA, there is clear congressional intent that
the prescribed remedies be exclusive. But unlike the ICCTA, the PREP Act
does not create a general cause of action that would preempt state-law
negligence claims. Nor does it contain “a specific jurisdictional grant to the
federal courts” to adjudicate any such cause of action. Gutierrez, 543 F.3d at
252. The features of the ICCTA that make it completely preemptive are
conspicuously absent in the PREP Act.
The Second Circuit’s consideration of a different analogous statute is
likewise instructive. See In re WTC Disaster Site, 414 F.3d 352 (2d Cir. 2005).
That statute was the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act
of 2001 (“ATSSSA”) enacted after the September 11th terrorist attacks.
Id.
at 373. Those eligible for recovery could either pursue compensation from
the ATSSSA’s Victim Compensation Fund or assert a statutory federal cause
of action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.
Id. at 373–75. The court found that the statute’s language showed a
clear intent to displace state law, but it distinguished between the cause of
action and the compensation fund.
Id. at 375–76; see Maglioli,
16 F.4th at 412
(discussing In re WTC and noting that it “distinguished the cause of action
from the compensation fund”). It held that the exclusive federal cause of
action was completely preemptive as the statute expressly made that cause of
action exclusive and conferred jurisdiction over all claims to the district
court. In re WTC, 414 F.3d at 375–76.
8
Case: 21-10477 Document: 00516233741 Page: 9 Date Filed: 03/10/2022
No. 21-10477
Like the ATSSSA, the PREP Act creates an exclusive federal cause of
action. Like the ATSSSA, the cause of action is different from the
compensation fund. But the ATSSSA’s cause of action is a general one that
is not limited to willful misconduct. And, as the district court explained, “the
ATSSSA permits a (specific) federal court to adjudicate ATSSSA claims
fully on the merits under section 408 of that statute, [while] the PREP Act
permits no such thing.” Mitchell, 2021 WL 1247884, at *4. Like the ICCTA,
there are material differences between the ATSSSA and the PREP Act.
Those differences cut decisively against complete preemption of Mitchell’s
claims.
Because the compensation fund created by the Act does not satisfy
this Circuit’s test for complete preemption, and because Mitchell could not
have brought his claims under the willful-misconduct cause of action, those
claims are not completely preempted. We therefore agree with the district
court and affirm its holding.
III
Wedgewood next argues that Mitchell’s claims raise a significant
federal issue that creates federal jurisdiction under the Grable doctrine. This
argument falls flat.
In Grable, the Supreme Court recognized that “in certain cases
federal-question jurisdiction will lie over state-law claims that implicate
significant federal issues.” Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g &
Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 312 (2005). Grable applies if: “(1) resolving a federal issue
is necessary to resolution of the state-law claim; (2) the federal issue is
actually disputed; (3) the federal issue is substantial; and (4) federal
jurisdiction will not disturb the balance of federal and state judicial
responsibilities.” The Lamar Co., L.L.C. v. Miss. Transp. Comm’n,
976 F.3d
524, 529 (5th Cir. 2020) (internal quotations and citations omitted). These
9
Case: 21-10477 Document: 00516233741 Page: 10 Date Filed: 03/10/2022
No. 21-10477
conditions are difficult to meet. Id. Like most federal question doctrines,
Grable is applied in the shadow of the well-pleaded complaint rule.
Id. (citing
Gutierrez,
543 F.3d at 251). Thus, the court looks to the face of a plaintiff’s
well-pleaded complaint to determine whether the issues it raises implicate
Grable.
Id. The category of cases that satisfy these requirements is “‘special
and small.’” Bd. of Comm’rs of Se. La. Flood Prot. Auth.-E. v. Tenn. Gas
Pipeline Co.,
850 F.3d 714, 721 (5th Cir. 2017) (quoting Gunn v. Minton,
568
U.S. 251, 258 (2013)). The type of claim that creates a federal question under
Grable is typically a state-law claim premised on some component of federal
law. For example, a negligence claim that is premised on the existence of a
duty established by federal law creates a federal question.
Id. at 722–23.
Wedgewood argues that the PREP Act’s broad grant of immunity, its
exclusive remedial scheme, and agency guidance documents create a
significant federal issue in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. That
argument fails because the relevance of the Act’s immunity provisions is
defensive, as is its preemptive effect. To the extent agency action compelled
Wedgewood’s conduct here, Wedgewood may assert an additional
preemption defense. See Greenwich Ins. Co. v. Miss. Windstorm Underwriting
Ass’n, 808 F.3d 652, 655 (5th Cir. 2015). But when a federal issue is raised
“[a]s a defense, it does not appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint.”
Metro. Life Ins.,
481 U.S. at 63 (citation omitted). Thus, these federal issues
are neither raised nor disputed on the face of the complaint, and Grable does
not apply.
IV
Finally, Wedgewood argues that it may avail itself of the federal officer
removal statute, which allows qualifying persons to “remove cases to federal
court that ordinary federal question removal would not reach . . . , so long as
the officer asserts a federal defense in the response” to a complaint. Latiolais
10
Case: 21-10477 Document: 00516233741 Page: 11 Date Filed: 03/10/2022
No. 21-10477
v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., 951 F.3d 286, 290 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc)
(discussing
28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)). The statute is construed broadly and in
favor of a federal forum. Williams v. Lockheed Martin Corp.,
990 F.3d 852, 859
(5th Cir. 2021). “[T]o remove under section 1442(a), a defendant must show
(1) it has asserted a colorable federal defense, (2) it is a ‘person’ within the
meaning of the statute, (3) that has acted pursuant to a federal officer’s
directions, and (4) the charged conduct is connected or associated with an
act pursuant to a federal officer’s directions.” Latiolais,
951 F.3d at 296. The
“archetypal” case arises when a government contractor is sued. Williams,
990 F.3d at 859; see, e.g., Latiolais,
951 F.3d at 289 (contractor allegedly
installed asbestos on a U.S. Navy ship at the direction of the Navy).
Wedgewood fails to satisfy the third prong of this test because it was
not “act[ing] pursuant to a federal officer’s directions.” Latiolais, 951 F.3d
at 296. The statute requires that a private-party defendant show that they
were “acting under” a federal officer or agency.
28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).
“Acting under” is a broad phrase. Watson v. Philip Morris Cos.,
551 U.S. 142,
147 (2007). But it is not limitless. It requires that a private party have a
subordinate relationship to the federal officer or agency in question. Such
relationships typically involve “subjection, guidance, or control.”
Id. at 151
(citations omitted). Further, the relationship “must involve an effort to
assist, or to help carry out, the duties or tasks of the federal superior.”
Id. at
152 (citations omitted). “[S]imply complying with the law” is not enough.
Id.
“The upshot is that a highly regulated firm cannot find a statutory
basis for removal in the fact of federal regulation alone . . . even if the
regulation is highly detailed and even if the private firm’s activities are highly
supervised and monitored.” Id. at 153. For example, government contractors
who “go[] beyond simple compliance” by “help[ing] officers fulfill other
basic governmental tasks” qualify under the statute.
Id. at 154; see also
Maryland v. Soper (No. 1),
270 U.S. 9, 30 (1926) (chauffeur for prohibition
11
Case: 21-10477 Document: 00516233741 Page: 12 Date Filed: 03/10/2022
No. 21-10477
agents); Davis v. South Carolina, 107 U.S. 597, 600 (1883) (U.S. Army
corporal assisting revenue agent); In re Commonwealth’s Motion to Appoint
Couns. Against or Directed to Def. Ass’n of Phila.,
790 F.3d 457, 469 (3d Cir.
2015) (nonprofit community defenders).
Wedgewood raises three principal arguments for why it was “acting
under” the government and may utilize the removal statute. Each fails.
A
First, Wedgewood argues that it was designated as “critical
infrastructure” and “enlisted” in the government’s efforts to combat
COVID-19, subjecting it to “the federal government’s direction under its
close supervision.” Wedgewood does not, however, cite any record evidence
of enlistment, direction, or close supervision. As for critical infrastructure
designation, the Eighth Circuit recently rejected that argument—in
persuasive fashion—in Buljic v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 22 F.4th 730, 739–42 (8th
Cir. 2021). That case involved a food processing company which was part of
an industry that had been designated “critical infrastructure”—along with
the rest of the “food and agriculture” sector—under the same Presidential
Policy Directive that Wedgewood invokes here.
Id. at 739–40 (citing and
discussing Presidential Policy Directive 21 – Critical Infrastructure Security
and Resilience, DCPD-201300092 (Feb. 12, 2013) [hereinafter PPD-21]).
But, as the Eighth Circuit noted, “[t]he 2013 list [of critical infrastructure]
included sectors as broad as “‘Commercial Facilities,’ ‘Financial Services,’
and ‘Healthcare.’”
Id. at 740. It would be absurd for “mere designation of
an industry as important—or even critical—[to be] sufficient to federalize an
entity’s operations and confer federal jurisdiction.”
Id. (citing Maglioli,
16
F.4th at 406).
Nor do more specific critical-infrastructure designations pursuant to
PPD–21 help matters. The Third Circuit noted that such designations
12
Case: 21-10477 Document: 00516233741 Page: 13 Date Filed: 03/10/2022
No. 21-10477
include “doctors, weather forecasters, clergy, farmers, bus drivers,
plumbers, dry cleaners, and many other workers.” Maglioli, 16 F.4th at 406
(discussing Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Sec. Agency,
Advisory Memorandum on Ensuring Essential Critical
Infrastructure Workers’ Ability to Work During the
Covid-19 Response 7 (Dec. 16, 2020) [hereinafter CISA
Memorandum]). These “inten[tionally] . . . overly inclusive,” CISA
Memorandum at 7, designations cannot suffice to “deputize all of these
private-sector workers as federal officers.” Maglioli,
16 F.4th at 406. Indeed,
under Wedgewood’s theory, all lawyers are federal officers. See CISA
Memorandum at 19.
As the Third and Eighth Circuits concluded, designation of nearly the
entire private economy as critical infrastructure cannot create the kind of
relationship required for a private entity to utilize the federal officer removal
statute. Such a broad expansion of federal jurisdiction is supported by
“[n]either [the] language, nor [the] history, nor [the] purpose” of the statute.
Watson, 551 U.S. at 153.
B
Second, Wedgewood argues that the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (“CDC”) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
(“CMS”) “engaged nursing homes in a uniquely mandated role to aid in the
government’s efforts.” For support, Wedgewood cites numerous agencyauthored documents in the record. These are unavailing. They consist of
permissive guidance, publishing of best practices, helpful suggestions, or a
combination thereof. They set forth aspirations and expectations, not
mandates. “[V]erbiage denoting guidance, not control,” is insufficient to
establish the kind of relationship necessary to invoke the statute. Maglioli, 16
F.4th at 405 (citing Watson,
551 U.S. at 153). The closest any of these
13
Case: 21-10477 Document: 00516233741 Page: 14 Date Filed: 03/10/2022
No. 21-10477
documents come to any mandatory direction is the intermittent statement by
CMS that it will conduct surveys “to investigate compliance” with existing
regulations. But close monitoring of mere compliance is not enough. Watson,
551 U.S. at 153. 4 Instead, the Supreme Court has made it “clear” that the
type of relationship necessary for removal “must involve an effort to assist, or
to help carry out, the duties or tasks of the federal superior.”
Id. at 152 (first
emphasis added). That kind of relationship is absent here.
C
Finally, Wedgewood urges this court to adopt a “regulation plus”
theory. That theory provides that comprehensive and detailed regulations
alone may allow a private entity to remove under the statute. Bakalis v.
Crossland Sav. Bank, 781 F. Supp. 140, 145 (E.D.N.Y. 1991). Bakalis
constitutes the sum total of authority that Wedgewood cites in support of this
theory and, as Wedgewood admits, Bakalis was decided before Watson.
Watson expressly rejected any notion that “the fact of federal regulation
alone” could suffice under the statute “even if the regulation is highly
4
In its reply brief, Wedgewood cites a statement by CMS that calls its efforts
“unprecedented targeted direction.” Ctrs. for Medicare & Medicaid Servs.,
COVID-19 Long-Term Care Facility Guidance (Apr. 2, 2020). But by its own
terms, that document is discussing “new recommendations” about what nursing homes and
long-term care facilities “should” do, including “immediately ensur[ing] that they are
complying with all CMS and CDC guidance.” Id. (emphasis added).
Close examination of the documents that constitute this “unprecedented targeted
direction” bolsters the conclusion that this statement is mere press-release puffery. These
“strict infection control and other screening recommendations” are just that. Id. (emphasis
added). Although the press release announcing visitor restrictions refers to the agency
“direct[ing] nursing homes,” the actual document does not direct anything. Like all the
others, it merely recommends that “[f]acilities should restrict visitation of all visitors and
non-essential health care personnel.” Ctrs. for Medicare & Medicaid Servs.,
Guidance for Infection Control and Prevention of Coronavirus
Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Nursing Homes 2 (Mar. 13, 2020) (emphasis
added).
14
Case: 21-10477 Document: 00516233741 Page: 15 Date Filed: 03/10/2022
No. 21-10477
detailed and even if the private firm’s activities are highly supervised and
monitored.” 551 U.S. at 153. Wedgewood cites no authority applying a
“regulation plus” framework after Watson, and we decline to revive that
theory.
V
At bottom, Wedgewood attempts to both transform a preemption
defense into a grant of jurisdiction and recast private healthcare companies
as deputies of the federal government. We reject these overtures. In doing so,
we agree with the only other federal circuit courts to address these same
arguments. Mitchell’s state-law negligence claims will be adjudicated in state
court. AFFIRMED and REMANDED with directions to further
REMAND this case to the appropriate state court.
15
