N. Buckner v. Universal Television LLC et al

Filing 22

ORDER by Judge Manuel L. Real: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is DENIED. (Dkt. No. 13 ) (rfi)

1

NO JS-6

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13

N. BUCKNER, individually and as on behalf
of the State of California as well as proposed
Classes of Aggrieved Employees,

14
15
16
17
18
19

Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSAL TELEVISION, LLC, a New
York Limited Liability Company; et al.,
Defendants.

) CASE NO. CV 17-6489-R
)
) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
) MOTION TO REMAND
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, which was filed on October 2, 2017.

20

(Dkt. No. 13). Having been fully briefed by both parties, this Court took the matter under

21

submission on October 31, 2017.

22

The Complaint alleges the following. Defendants employed Plaintiff as a crewmember for

23

production of the television project “Hairspray Live!” on or about November 21, 2016, through

24

December 8, 2016. Defendants did not pay Plaintiff his correct overtime, double time or premium

25

wages. The Complaint alleges four claims against Defendants: (1) Continuing Wages for Failure

26

to Timely Pay Final Wages under California Labor Code section 203; (2) Failure to Provide

27

Accurate Itemized Wage Statements in Violation of California Labor Code section 226; (3)

28

Failure to Pay Overtime and Minimum Wage under Labor Code sections 510 and 1194; (4) Civil

1

Penalties under the California Private Attorney General Act, Labor Code sections 2698 et seq.

2

The Complaint does not allege that Plaintiff’s employment terms were governed by a collective

3

bargaining agreement (“CBA”). Defendants timely removed on the basis that section 301 of the

4

Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”) preempts Plaintiff’s claims. Defendants claim that

5

Plaintiff’s employment terms were governed by five different CBAs. Defendants attached copies

6

of all CBAs to the Notice of Removal. Plaintiff moves to remand the entire case to state court.

7

A defendant may remove a civil action from state court if the action could have originally

8

been filed in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “The burden of establishing federal subject

9

matter jurisdiction falls on the party invoking removal.” Marin Gen. Hosp. v. Modesto & Empire

10

Traction Co., 581 F.3d 941, 944 (9th Cir. 2009). Even if the complaint does not raise a federal

11

claim on its face, federal question jurisdiction exists when federal law completely preempts a state

12

law cause of action. Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002).

13

The preemptive force of the LMRA “is so powerful as to displace entirely any state cause

14

of action for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization.” Burnside v.

15

Kiewit Pacific Corp., 491 F.3d 1053, 1059 (9th Cir. 2007). “Courts in the Ninth Circuit apply a

16

two-step analysis to determine whether [LMRA] preemption applies.” Coria v. Recology, Inc., 63

17

F. Supp. 3d 1093, 1096 (N.D. Cal. 2014). First, courts look to “whether the asserted cause of

18

action involves a right conferred upon an employee by virtue of state law, not by a CBA. If the

19

right exists solely as a result of the CBA, then the claim is preempted, and [the] analysis ends

20

there.” Burnside, 491 F.3d at 1059. Second, if “the right exists independently of the CBA,

21

[courts] must still consider whether it is nevertheless substantially dependent on analysis of a

22

[CBA].” Id.

23

California Labor Code section 510 entitles an employee to double time under certain

24

specific conditions. However, California Labor Code section 514 specifically mandates that

25

section 510 does “not apply to an employee covered by a valid [CBA] if the [CBA] expressly

26

provides for the wages, hours of work, and working conditions of the employees, and if the

27

agreement provides premium wage rates for all overtime hours worked and a regular hourly rate of

28

pay for those employees of not less than 30 percent more than the state minimum wage.” Cal.
2

1

Lab. Code § 514. Wage Orders 11 and 12, which also govern an employee’s overtime pay,

2

contain the same exceptions found in section 514. 8 Cal. Code Regs §§ 11110(3)(H); 11120(3)(J).

3

As an initial matter, this Court looks to the CBAs attached to Defendants’ Notice of

4

Removal in ruling on the instant Motion. See Hall v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc., 146 F. Supp.

5

3d 1187, 1192 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (“Because complete preemption often applies to complaints drawn

6

to evade federal jurisdiction, the court may look beyond the face of the complaint to determine

7

whether the claims alleged as state law causes of action in fact are necessarily federal claims.”).

8

Courts “may view whatever evidence has been submitted on the issue to determine whether

9

subject matter jurisdiction exists….” Jankins v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. CV 17-00887 BRO

10

(AJW), 2017 WL 1181562, at *3 (C.D. Cal. March 29, 2017). The Federal Rules do not require

11

that evidence in support of or in opposition to a motion to remand be admissible. See id. Because

12

the CBAs form the basis of Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff’s overtime claim is completely

13

preempted by the LMRA, the Court considers the CBAs in deciding the Motion.

14

Next, this Court concludes that the LMRA preempts Plaintiff’s overtime claim under the

15

first step of the Burnside test because the exceptions in section 514 and Wage Orders 11 and 12

16

apply. Hall, 146 F. Supp. 3d at 1193. First, the CBAs provide for the wages, hours of work, and

17

working conditions of the employees on “Hairspray Live!” Second, the CBAs provide premium

18

rates for overtime and “Golden Hours.” The provisions in the CBAs meet the exceptions

19

articulated in section 514 and the Wage Orders, and state law does not govern Plaintiff’s overtime

20

rights. Plaintiff does not otherwise dispute that the CBAs meet these exceptions or acknowledge

21

these exceptions at all. Therefore, Plaintiff’s overtime rights arise exclusively out of the CBAs,

22

and the LMRA preempts Plaintiff’s overtime claim. See Coria, 63 F. Supp. 3d at 1100 (holding

23

that LMRA preempted overtime claim under first step of Burnside test where section 514

24

exception applied).

25

If a district court has federal jurisdiction over a claim, it may exercise supplemental

26

jurisdiction over all other claims that form part of the same case or controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

27

A state law claim is part of the same case or controversy if it shares a “common nucleus of

28

operative fact” with the federal claims, and the state and federal claims would normally be tried
3

1

together. Bahrampour v. Lampert, 356 F.3d 969, 978 (9th Cir. 2004). Here, all claims in the

2

Complaint stem from Plaintiff’s three-week employment period at the end of 2016 and are based

3

upon Defendants’ allegedly defective wage payments. Therefore, all claims share a common

4

nucleus of operative fact, and supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is DENIED. (Dkt. No.

5
6

13).

7
8

Dated: November 30, 2017.

9
10
11

___________________________________
MANUEL L. REAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4