Case 5:22-cv-00300-SB-SHK Document 14 Filed 02/24/22 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:495

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No.: 5:22-cv-00300-SB-SHK Date: February 23, 2022

Priscilla Luna et al. v. P & M Healthcare Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Rancho Mesa Title: Care Center et al.

Present: The Honorable STANLEY BLUMENFELD, JR., U.S. District Judge

Jennifer Graciano N/A

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s):

None Appearing None Appearing

Proceedings: AMENDED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE

SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED

On February 18, 2022, the Court issued an order to show cause (OSC) why this matter should not be remanded to state court in light of the reasoning in two decisions by this Court addressing similar questions of federal jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 10.

On February 22, 2022, the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling in Saldana v. Glenhaven Healthcare LLC, 2022 WL 518989 (9th Cir. Feb. 22, 2022), a case with striking similarities to this one. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to remand a case where the plaintiff brought state-law claims for wrongful death, negligence, and elder abuse and the defendants removed the case to federal court, contending that federal question jurisdiction existed because the plaintiff’s claims arose under a federal statute—the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act—which completely preempted the plaintiff’s state-law claims. Id. at *2, *6. The Ninth Circuit rejected the defendants’ argument and held that the PREP Act is not a complete preemption statute under the two-part test CV-90 (12/02) CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk JGR 1 Case 5:22-cv-00300-SB-SHK Document 14 Filed 02/24/22 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:496

set forth in City of Oakland v. BP PLC, 969 F.3d 895, 906 (9th Cir. 2020). The Ninth Circuit also found that there was no embedded federal question implicated by the plaintiff’s complaint or federal-officer jurisdiction. Id. at *6.

Defendants’ written response to the OSC remains due not later than March 4, 2022. However, Defendants should now include in their response why this matter should not be remanded to state court in light of Saldana. Defendants’ response to this OSC may not exceed 20 pages in length.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (12/02) CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk JGR 2