a process over which OPM exerts regulatory control.” Id. The court concluded that removal pursuant to the federal officer removal statute was proper because the insurance carrier was subject to extensive oversight by OPM. See also, Goncalves ex rel. Goncalves v. Rady Children’s Hosp. San Diego, 65 F.Supp.3d 985, 991 (S.D.Cal.2014) (appeal filed) (following Jacks and concluding that “in exercising their subro-gation rights, the [insurance carriers’] actions were taken pursuant to a federal officer’s direction”); Grp. Health Inc. v. Blue Cross Ass’n, 587 F.Supp. 887, 891 (S.D.N.Y.1984) (federal officer removal by medicare administrator proper); Anesthesiology Assocs. of Tallahassee v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., 2005 WL 6717869, at *2 (11th Cir. Mar. 18, 2005) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>); but see Morris v. Humana Health Plan, Inc.,
holding that the federal government was liable for a taking of property where california officials acting under the authority of a federal order occupied land holding that neither mere participation in a federal program nor provision requiring compliance with federal law is sufficient to establish that the state consented to be sued in federal court holding that a health plan insurer contracting with a government agency under a federal benefits program is considered a person acting under a federal officer holding that a state agency is not a person subject to suit under federal false claims act holding that health insurer contracted with fehba was not acting under a federal agency within the meaning of the federal officer removal statute