UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 20, 2024

Christopher M. Wolpert FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court _________________________________

JOHN DOE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. No. 23-6209

INTEGRIS HEALTH, INC.,

Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (D.C. No. 5:23-CV-00728-HE) _________________________________ Kyle T. Cutts, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Cleveland, Ohio (Paul G. Karlsgodt, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Denver, Colorado; Lisa A. Houssiere, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Houston, Texas; Larry D. Ottaway and Andrew M. Bowman, Foliart, Huff, Ottaway & Bottom, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on the briefs), for Defendant – Appellant. Michael C. Iadevaia, Stranch, Jennings & Garvey, PLLC, Nashville, Tennessee (J. Gerard Stranch IV, Stranch, Jennings & Garvey, PLLC; Lynn A. Toops, Cohen & Malad, LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana; Matthew Dean Alison and Jason Bjorn Aamodt, Indian & Environmental Law Group, Tulsa, Oklahoma, with him on the briefs), for Plaintiff – Appellee. _________________________________ Before TYMKOVICH, McHUGH, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ McHUGH, Circuit Judge. _________________________________ Appellate Case: 23-6209 Document: 83-1 Date Filed: 12/20/2024 Page: 2

Plaintiff John Doe filed a putative class action lawsuit against Defendant Integris Health, Inc. In his complaint, Mr. Doe alleges that Integris collected confidential health information from people who visited its website and unlawfully shared that information with third parties, like Google and Facebook.

Mr. Doe brought his suit in Oklahoma state court and asserted only state law claims. Integris responded by removing the case to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, asserting it was “acting under” the direction of a federal officer. See 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). Integris argued it acted under a federal officer because it created its website to help the federal government achieve its objective of ensuring patients can access and use electronic health records (“EHR”).

The federal district court remanded the case, concluding Integris had not shown it was “acting under” the direction of a federal officer. We agree with this conclusion and affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual History1

In 2004, President George W. Bush issued an executive order directing the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to establish the position of National Health Information Technology Coordinator (the “National Coordinator”). Exec.

1 “When courts review a notice of removal for jurisdiction, they may consider the complaint as well as documents attached to the notice of removal.” Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs v. Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc., 25 F.4th 1238, 1247 n.1 (10th Cir. 2022). Accordingly, these facts are drawn from Mr. Doe’s complaint as well as the documents attached to Integris’s Notice of Removal.

2 Appellate Case: 23-6209 Document: 83-1 Date Filed: 12/20/2024 Page: 3

Order No. 13,335, 69 Fed. Reg. 24059 (Apr. 27, 2004). The National Coordinator’s purpose is “to provide leadership for the development and nationwide implementation of an interoperable[2] health information technology infrastructure to improve the quality and efficiency of health car