Belinda Williams v. Durham School Services et al

Filing 10

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Josephine Staton Tucker. Defendants are ordered to show cause no later than May 20, 2013, (1) why this case should not be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction as set forth above, or, alternatively, (2) why this Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint. Failure to timely respond will result in immediate dismissal of the action. (rla)

____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. EDCV 13-740-JST (SPx)
Title: Belinda Williams v. Durham School Services, et al.

Date: May 8, 2013

Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE STATON TUCKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Terry Guerrero
Deputy Clerk
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:
DEFENDANT:
Not Present

N/A
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR

Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO
SHOW CAUSE RE SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION
Defendants removed Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint to this Court on the
basis of federal-question jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal, Doc. 1.) Defendants allege
that “Plaintiff asserts at least one common law claim that is completely preempted by
Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act [LMRA], 29 U.S.C. § 1985,”
namely Plaintiff’s sixth claim—violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing of her collective bargaining agreement. (Id. ¶ 4.)
While ordinarily “[a] claim of breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing is preempted by section 301 when an employee has comparable job security
under a collective bargaining agreement,” Jackson v. S. Cal. Gas Co., 881 F.2d 638, 64445 (9th Cir. 1989), “[b]y the plain, unambiguous language of the LMRA, the definition of
‘labor organization’ excludes an organization of employees of a political subdivision of a
state.” Pac. Mar. Ass'n v. Local 63, Int’l Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union,
198 F.3d 1078, 1081 (9th Cir. 1999). See 29 U.S.C. § 152(2); see also Ayres v. Int’l
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 666 F.2d 441, 442-44 (9th Cir. 1982) (analyzing the
relationship between the subchapters of the LMRA and determining that the definition of
“employer” contained in 29 U.S.C. § 152(2) applies to the term as it is used in 29 U.S.C.
§ 1985(a)). See also Hadley v. Haw. Gov’t Emps. Ass’n, No. 05-00660 ACK/KSC, 2006
WL 695036, at *3 (D. Haw. Mar. 13, 2006) (same). Thus, it appears that Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint was not removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
1

____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. EDCV 13-740-JST (SPx)
Title: Belinda Williams v. Durham School Services, et al.

Date: May 8, 2013

Moreover, even if Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint did present a federal
claim, she filed a Second Amended Complaint on May 3, 2013, asserting only two
claims: termination in violation of public policy and retaliation. (Doc. 8.)
Accordingly, Defendants are ordered to show cause no later than May 20, 2013,
(1) why this case should not be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction as set
forth above, or, alternatively, (2) why this Court should exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. Failure to timely respond will
result in immediate dismissal of the action.

Initials of Preparer: tg

______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
2