UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOHN DOE, on behalf of himself and No. 23-55466 all others similarly situated, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellee, 2:23-cv-00870- DSF-JPR v. CEDARS-SINAI HEALTH SYSTEM; OPINION CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER,

Defendants-Appellants.

JARROD BROWNE, No. 23-55474

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:23-cv-01551- v. DSF-JPR CEDARS-SINAI HEALTH SYSTEM; CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER,

Defendants-Appellants. 2 DOE V. CEDARS-SINAI HEALTH SYSTEM

STEVEN BELTRAN; LISA No. 23-55557 REINGOLD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, D.C. No. 2:23-cv-02626- Plaintiffs-Appellees, DSF-JPR

v. CEDARS-SINAI HEALTH SYSTEM; CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER,

Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 10, 2024 Pasadena, California

Filed July 5, 2024

Before: Marsha S. Berzon and Salvador Mendoza, Jr., Circuit Judges, and Susan R. Bolton,* District Judge.

Opinion by Judge Mendoza

* The Honorable Susan R. Bolton, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. DOE V. CEDARS-SINAI HEALTH SYSTEM 3

SUMMARY **

Federal Officer Removal

The panel affirmed the district court’s orders remanding removed actions to state court based on a lack of federal officer jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). Three sets of plaintiffs filed class-action lawsuits in state court against their healthcare provider, Cedars-Sinai Health System and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, alleging that Cedars-Sinai unlawfully disclosed their private medical information to third parties through tracking software on its website. Cedars-Sinai removed the suits to federal court under § 1442(a)(1), arguing that it developed its website while acting under a federal officer and at the direction of the federal government. Following other circuits, the panel agreed with the district court that Cedars-Sinai developed its website in compliance with a generally applicable and comprehensive regulatory scheme under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, and that there was therefore no federal jurisdiction under § 1442(a)(1). Although Cedars-Sinai’s website furthered the government’s broad goal of promoting access to digital health records, Cedars-Sinai’s relationship with the federal government did not establish that it acted pursuant to congressionally delegated authority to help accomplish a basic governmental task. Indeed, far from acting at the direction of a federal officer, Cedars-Sinai built a private ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. 4 DOE V. CEDARS-SINAI HEALTH SYSTEM

website of its own design to benefit its patients and staff. Accordingly, Cedars-Sinai did not meet § 1442(a)(1)’s “causal nexus” requirement.

COUNSEL Rachele R. Byrd (argued), Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, San Diego, California; Brittany Scott and Lawrence T. Fisher, Bursor & Fisher PA, Walnut Creek, California; Scott R. Drury, Drury Legal LLC, Highwood, Illinois; Samuel M. Ward, Barrack Rodos & Bacine, San Diego, California; for Plaintiffs-Appellees. Kyle T. Cutts (argued), Baker & Hostetler LLP