Rathod v. Providence Health & Services

Opinion

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

7 ADNAND RATHOD, et al., CASE NO. C20-0394RSL 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 9 v. MOTION FOR REMAND

10 PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES, et al.,

11 Defendants.

13 14 This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs’ “Motion to Remand.” Dkt # 7. Having 15 reviewed the submissions of the parties, the motion is DENIED. The Attorney General has 16 certified that, at all times relevant to this action, Amy Rodriguez, M.D., was an employee of 17 Community Health Center of Snohomish County, a grantee under the Federally Supported 18 Health Centers Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. § 233, and was acting within the scope of her 19 employment. Thus, Dr. Rodriguez was an employee of the United States for purposes of the 20 Federal Tort Claims Act. The fact that plaintiffs have alleged otherwise is not controlling: the 21 certification conclusively establishes federal jurisdiction, and the case may not be remanded.1 22

23 1 If plaintiffs intend to challenge the factually accuracy of the scope of employment certification, they may do so in the course of this litigation. Osborn v. Haley, 549 U.S. 225, 242 (2007). 1 Dated this 18th day of May, 2020.

2 A 3 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23