Aracely Galdamez v. Metro Services Group et al

Filing 14

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Parties are therefore ordered to file cross-briefs, not to exceed ten pages, by no later than Monday, March 11, 2013 to show cause why this action should not be remanded for lack of jurisdiction. The parties should also deliver a courtesy copy to chambers. (lc)

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ARACELY GALDAMEZ, an
individual,

12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
15
16
17

METRO SERVICE SOUTH, INC., a
business of unknown form;
MAURICIO SANCHEZ, an
individual,
Defendants.
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 12-10934 DDP (RZx)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE
SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK
OF JURISDICTION

18
19
It is not clear to the court that it has subject matter
20
jurisdiction over this case.

Defendant Metro Services Group

21
removed the case to this court claiming that Plaintiff’s first
22
cause of action for Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair
23
Dealing is preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management
24
Relations Act.
25
Preemption under section 301 requires a two-step analysis.
26
See Burnside v. Kiewit Pac. Corp., 491 F.3d 1053, 1059 (9th Cir.
27
2007).
28

First, the Court must determine “whether the asserted cause

1

of action involves a right conferred upon an employee by virtue of

2

state law, not by a CBA.”

3

CBA, preemption applies, but if it is conferred by state law, the

4

inquiry moves to step two.

5

Id.

If the right is conferred by the

Id.

At the second step, the Court must determine whether

6

Plaintiff’s claims are “nevertheless ‘substantially dependent on

7

analysis of a collective-bargaining agreement.’”

8

F.3d at 1059 (quoting Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386,

9

394 (1987)).

Burnside, 491

If the claim requires the court to “interpret,”

10

rather than merely “look to,” the CBA, then the claim is

11

substantially dependent on the CBA and is preempted by section 301.

12

See id. at 1060.

13

the CBA, however, the fact that it will be “consulted in the course

14

of state law litigation does not require preemption.”

15

Circus Circus Casinos, Inc., 473 F.3d 994, 998 (9th Cir. 2007).

16

Moreover, “reliance on the CBA as an aspect of a defense is not

17

enough to ‘inject[] a federal question into an action that asserts

18

what is plainly a state-law claim.’” (quoting Caterpillar, 482 U.S.

19

at 398-99 (explaining that “the plaintiff is the master of the

20

complaint,” and that if the defendant could engineer “the forum in

21

which the claim shall be litigated” based on the substance of his

22

defense, “the plaintiff would be master of nothing”)).

23

When the parties do not dispute the meaning of

Ward v.

Here, Plaintiff’s claims do not appear to require the

24

interpretation of the CBA.

25

cross-briefs, not to exceed ten pages, by no later than Monday,

26

March 11, 2013 to show cause why this action should not be remanded

27

for lack of jurisdiction.

28

courtesy copy to chambers, Room 244-J, Second Floor, 312 N. Spring

Parties are therefore ordered to file

The parties should also deliver a

2

1

Street, Los Angeles.

If a party does not file a brief, the court

2

will regard the party as consenting to remand.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
7

Dated: March 1, 2013
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3