Johnson v. Petaluma Health Center, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THURMAN JOHNSON, Case No. 23-cv-03777-VC

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO

v. REMAND, STAYING REMAND

PENDING FURTHER ORDER

PETALUMA HEALTH CENTER, INC.,

Re: Dkt. No. 63 Defendant.

DARLENE GERSON, et al., Case No. 23-cv-03870-VC Plaintiffs, v. Re: Dkt. No.

PETALUMA HEALTH CENTER, INC.,

Defendant.

The motions to remand are granted. These two cases were not removable under either 42 U.S.C § 233(l) or 28 U.S.C. § 1442. This ruling assumes that the reader is familiar with the briefing and the transcript from the April 24 hearing. This ruling also assumes that the reader has reviewed Blumberger v. Tilley, 115 F.4th 1113 (9th Cir. 2024), and the statute it interprets, a number of times. If you haven’t done those things, you won’t understand a word of this. * * * Both sides misread Blumberger in ways that could create chaos throughout the Ninth Circuit in cases where defendants who claim to be “deemed employees” for purposes of section 233 have served the Attorney General with a state court complaint. So at the outset, it’s worth explaining at some length what…