NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 21 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

QIANA WINN, individually and as No. 21-55468 Successor in Interest to the Estate of Michael Winn, D.C. No. 2:21-cv-02854-PA-MAR Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. MEMORANDUM*

CALIFORNIA POST ACUTE, LLC, DBA

California Post Acute,

Defendant-Appellant,

and

DOES, 1-50,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 20, 2023**

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

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). California Post Acute, LLC (“Post Acute”) appeals from the district court’s

order remanding this case to state court for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Post Acute 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. In the alternative, Post Acute argues that it should have

been allowed jurisdictional discovery.

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 Post Acute’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 Post Acute

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

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

2 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

jurisdiction.” Id.

IV

The district court did not abuse its discretion by not providing for

jurisdictional discovery. Jurisdictional discovery is appropriate only “where

pertinent facts bearing on the question of jurisdiction are controverted or where a

more satisfactory showing of the facts is necessary.” Yamashita v. LG Chem, Ltd.,

62 F.4th 496, 507 (9th Cir. 2023) (cleaned up). Here, the parties dispute no facts

3 about the extent of federal regulation of health care providers during the COVID-19

pandemic, but only the legal significance of that regulation, which Saldana resolved.

V

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

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.1

1 Appellees’ Motion for Summary Affirmance, Dkt. 37, is DENIED AS MOOT.

4