Rathod v. Providence Health & Services

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE ADNAND RATHOD, et al., CASE NO. C20-0394RSL Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 9 v. MOTION FOR REMAND PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES, et al., 11 Defendants.

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

A 3 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge