Doe v. Cedars-Sinai Health System

Published by Crandall Consulting · Informational litigation intelligence · Last substantive update: October 13, 2026

Docket / citation: 23-55466

Summary

The Ninth Circuit affirmed remand orders in three patient class actions alleging disclosure of private medical information through Cedars-Sinai's website tracking software. The court concluded that Cedars-Sinai's website development did not establish federal officer removal jurisdiction; the excerpt describes a jurisdictional ruling rather than a determination of the underlying privacy claims.

Litigation Status

Status, direction, and weight describe how tracked public sources characterize this matter as of our last review — they are informational classifications, not legal assessments.

Procedural Posture

Three patient class actions filed in state court were removed by Cedars-Sinai under the federal officer removal statute. The district court ordered remand, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed on consolidated appeal. The excerpt identifies companion appeals 23-55474 and 23-55557 alongside lead appeal 23-55466.

Reported Holding

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the remand orders because Cedars-Sinai's development of its website under a generally applicable regulatory scheme did not establish federal officer removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).

What the Court Decided

The court affirmed the district court's orders remanding the three removed actions to state court.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The excerpt does not describe a merits determination concerning the alleged disclosure of patients' medical information.

Significance

Neutral / mixed significance. Characterizations of significance describe how the matter has generally been discussed in tracked public sources; individual holdings are often narrow, procedural, or fact-specific, and this page does not state or imply broader holdings than the sources support.

What This Page Does and Does Not Say

This page reports what our tracked public sources say about this matter — including, where identified, the procedural posture (for example, a ruling on a motion to dismiss is not a final merits decision). It does not report legal conclusions beyond those sources, does not predict outcomes, and does not constitute legal advice.

Technologies at Issue

• website tracking software

Statutes Invoked

• 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1); Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act

Claims Asserted

Claims identified in tracked public sources; pleadings may include additional or amended claims.

• Alleged disclosure of private medical information to third parties through website tracking software

Related Intelligence

Sources

• Doe v. Cedars-Sinai Health System — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2024-07-05

About This Page

Publisher: Inspection-Ready Institute, Inc. (DBA Crandall Consulting), an independent website compliance and risk consultancy. We are not a law firm and nothing on this page is legal advice.

How this content is produced: Facts are extracted from publicly available sources — court and government materials, recognized legal press, professional analysis, and industry reports — by our litigation intelligence engine, stored with full source provenance, and rendered from the database. Risk guidelines are computed by a deterministic formula, never by an AI model directly. See the full methodology.

Limitations: Counts labeled "Tracked" reflect matters identified in our source set and are not official court statistics. We report what courts decided and did not decide; we do not predict outcomes.

Corrections: If you believe anything on this page is inaccurate, contact us via the contact page and we will review the underlying sources promptly.