Case 1:19-cv-02478 Document 1 Filed 08/30/19 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 19-cv-2478
CORNELIUS D. MAHONEY and BARBARA MORRIS, MD
Plaintiff,
v.
CENTURA HEALTH CORPORATION, a Colorado non-profit corporation.
Defendant.
NOTICE OF REMOVAL
TO THE JUDGES OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLORADO:
Defendant, Centura Health Corporation, through undersigned counsel, respectfully submits
this Notice of Removal of this action from the District Court, Arapahoe County, Colorado, the
court in which this case is presently pending as Case No. 2019CV31980, to the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado. This Notice of Removal is filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1441
and 1446, as well as D.C.COLO.LCivR 81.1. As grounds for removal, Defendant states as follows:
BACKGROUND
1.

On August 21, 2019, Plaintiffs Cornelius D. Mahoney and Barbara Morris, MD

(“Plaintiffs”) commenced an action in the District Court, Arapahoe County, Colorado, entitled
Cornelius D. Mahoney and Barbara Morris, MD v. Centura Health Corporation, Case No.

 Case 1:19-cv-02478 Document 1 Filed 08/30/19 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 7

2019CV31980 (hereinafter referred to as “the State Action”). A true and correct copy of the
Complaint and Summons is attached as Exhibit A.
2.

Plaintiffs served Defendant with a copy of the Summons and Complaint on August

22, 2019. A true and correct copy of the District Court Case Cover Sheet (“Cover Sheet”) is
attached as Exhibit B.
3.

Centura Health is a religious organization organized to "Extend the Healing

Ministry of Christ" to the people and communities its people and facilities serve.1 Centura Health
is sponsored by the Catholic and Seventh-day Adventist healthcare ministries. The religious
doctrines of those churches are core principles that govern, direct and inform the activities of
Defendant. When Dr. Morris signed her Physician Employment Agreement with Centura HealthSt. Anthony Hospital in 2017, she expressly agreed that she would not provide any services "that
are in violation of the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services." As a
matter of religious doctrine, those Directives declare that suicide and euthanasia are never morally
acceptable options and prohibit participation or cooperation in any intentional hastening of a
person's natural death, including through "an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil.".
4.

Rather than encouraging patient Cornelius Mahoney to receive care consistent with

that Catholic doctrine or transferring care to other providers, Dr. Morris has, within her
employment, encouraged an option that she knew was morally unacceptable to her employer. It
was her employer's religious judgment that her conduct in relation to Mr. Mahoney violated the

1

See, Medina v. Catholic Health Initiatives, 877 F.3d 1213 (Tenth Cir. 2017), in which the Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals confirmed that Centura and its sponsors are religious organizations. (“Centura is a joint venture between
CHI and Adventist Health System . . . Centura’s two sole corporate members are [CHI Colorado] . . . and PorterCare
Adventist Health System . . . Both CHIC’s and PorterCare’s facilities are tax exempt and each operates in accordance
with the teachings of its respective founding church.” Id. at 1229.

 Case 1:19-cv-02478 Document 1 Filed 08/30/19 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 7

religious principles upon which the Hospital operates and warranted the termination of her
employment.
5.

Centura Health has filed a Notice of Filing Notice of Removal and entered their

appearance in the State Court, see Exhibit C. Defendants have not filed and served an answer or
responsive pleading to the Complaint in the State Court.
6.

Plaintiff's Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, at page 13, seeks the following

"RELIEF REQUESTED":
1.
Declare that Defendant may not lawfully prohibit Dr. Morris from,
or sanction or penalize Dr. Morris for, providing AID [Aid In Dying] related
services to Neil, including but not limited to, prescribing AID medication
to Neil… .
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT PRESENTS A FEDERAL QUESTION
7.

In this case, it is undisputed that Plaintiff has asked the court to broadly declare that

her employer, Centura Health- St. Anthony Hospital, cannot lawfully discipline her for conduct in
her employment that violates its religious principles. That declaration could not be entered if the
federal constitution, statutes and case law dictate that such discipline is lawful and that courts must
not interfere with a religious organization's determinations regarding an employee's compliance
with its doctrines. A request for such a declaration raises the following substantial federal issues:
a.

Whether a declaration that a religious organization cannot discipline
its employee on the basis of conduct contrary to its religious
doctrines would violate the free exercise clause and/or the
establishment clause of the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution?

b.

Whether the state statute, on which Plaintiff bases her request for
the declaration, would be preempted by the federal statutory
exemption of Section 702 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat.
255, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-1, that explicitly exempts

 Case 1:19-cv-02478 Document 1 Filed 08/30/19 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 7

religious organizations from claims that arise from discipline on
religious grounds?
c.

8.

Whether the declaration sought would violate the principles taught
by the United States Supreme Court unanimously upholding "the
legitimate purpose of alleviating significant governmental
interference with the ability of religious organizations to define and
carry out their religious missions." Corporation of the Presiding
Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, et. al., v.
Amos, et. al., 483 U.S. 327 (107 S.Ct. 2862) (1987). The Court
rejected the lower court's intrusion into the religious organization's
employment decision: "It cannot be seriously contended that 702
impermissibly entangles church and state; the statute effectuates a
more complete separation of the two and avoids the kind of intrusive
inquiry into religious belief that the District Court engaged in in this
case." Id. at 340. See, also, Concurring Opinion, 483 U.S. at 341344: "[R]eligious organizations have an interest in autonomy in
ordering their internal affairs, so that they may be free to: 'select
their own leaders, define their own doctrines, resolve their own
disputes, and run their own institutions.' … Determining that certain
activities are in furtherance of an organization's religious mission,
and that only those committed to that mission should conduct them,
is thus a means by which a religious community defines itself. …
Furthermore, the prospect of government intrusion raises concern
that a religious organization may be chilled in its free exercise
activity. While a church may regard the conduct of certain functions
as integral to its mission, a court may disagree. … A case-by-case
analysis for all activities therefore would both produce excessive
government entanglement with religion and create the danger of
chilling religious activity." (citations omitted.)

Because Plaintiff’s requested declaratory relief involves very significant federal

issues, Plaintiff’s claims fall under federal question jurisdiction and are, therefore, subject to
removal to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). See, Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v.
Darue Engineering & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005).
9.

This Court has original jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331,

which provides that federal courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under
the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” (“Federal Question”).

 Case 1:19-cv-02478 Document 1 Filed 08/30/19 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 7

10.

Accordingly, removal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. This removal notice

is timely filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1446.
VENUE
11.

Venue lies in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the State Action was filed in this District
and the State Action asserts that the alleged unlawful actions took place in this District.
12.

Defendant has not filed a responsive pleading in the State Action.

13.

No hearings have been set in the State Action. Exhibit D, State Court Docket Sheet.
REMOVAL

14.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), Defendants have provided written notice of the

removal to all parties in this action and will simultaneously file a copy of this Notice of Removal
in the District Court, Arapahoe County.
15.

There are no pending motions and no hearings currently scheduled in the State

Action. Defendant understands that Plaintiffs intend to file a Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order and Preliminary Injunction.
16.

Defendants submit this Notice of Removal without waiving any defenses to the

claims asserted by Plaintiff or conceding that Plaintiff has pled claims upon which relief can be
granted.
17.

In accordance with D.C. COLO.L.CIV.R.81.1, Defendants have attached copies of

all state court pleadings, motions, and other papers, including the state court’s current docket sheet
attached here as Exhibits A through D.

 Case 1:19-cv-02478 Document 1 Filed 08/30/19 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 7

WHEREFORE, Defendant Centura Health Corporation respectfully request that the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado accept the removal of this action from the state
court and direct that the District Court for Arapahoe County have no further jurisdiction on this
matter, unless and until this case is remanded.
Respectfully submitted this 30th day of August, 2019.
HALL, RENDER, KILLIAN, HEATH & LYMAN, P.C.

s/ Melvin B. Sabey
Melvin B. Sabey, #9941
Hall Render Killian Heath & Lyman, P.C.
1512 Larimer Street, Suite 300, Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 801-3535
melsabey@hallrender.com
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

 Case 1:19-cv-02478 Document 1 Filed 08/30/19 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that on this 30th day of August, 2019, a true and correct copy of
the foregoing was filed via the CM/ECF with service upon the following:
Steven J. Wienczkowski
2019-08-30 Jason Spitalnick
Katherine A. Roush
Melanie MacWilliams-Brooks
Foster Graham Milstein & Calisher, LLP
360 South Garfield Street, 6th Floor
Denver, Colorado 80209
E-mail:
swienczkowski@fostergraham.com
jspitalnick@fostergraham.com
roush@fostergraham.com
mbrooks@fostergraham.com
Kathryn L. Tucker, JD, Executive Director
End of Life Liberty Project
3890 Lopez Sound Road
Lopez, Washington 98261
E-mail:
kathrynltucker@yahoo.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
s/ Crystal J. Sebastiani
Crystal J. Sebastiani, Paralegal

4817-6686-8899v1