Brittney Kevett v. Michael P. Graf et al

Filing 17

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT by Judge Stephen V. Wilson. The Court REMANDS the case to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County ofRiverside, Case number RIC 1606611. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (mrgo)

JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

5:17-cv-00316-SVW-DTB

Title

Brittney Kevett v. Michael P. Graf, d/b/a Quiznos, et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

March 30, 2017

STEPHEN V. WILSON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Paul M. Cruz

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

N/A

N/A

Proceedings:

I.

IN CHAMBERS ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT [8]

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Brittney Kevett (“Plaintiff”) was an employee at a fast-food restaurant owned and
operated by Michael P. Graf, doing business as Quiznos (“Graf”) and Does 1 through 20 inclusive
(collectively “Defendants”). Dkt. 13-2, p. 1. Plaintiff filed various claims in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Riverside for Defendants’ alleged violations under California Labor
Code and California Business and Professions Code. Dkt. 13-2, p. 5-10. Graf removed the action to this
Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), arguing that the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) preempts
Plaintiff’s state law claims. Dkt. 2, p. 2. Graf then filed a Motion to Dismiss, which is presently before the
Court. Dkt. 8.1
II.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On May 27, 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint for damages against Defendants in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Riverside. Dkt. 13-2, p. 1. Defendants own and operate a
fast-food business called Quiznos located in Riverside, California. Dkt. 13-2, p.1. Plaintiff was an
1

Having read and considered the papers presented by the parties, the Court finds this matter suitable for determination without
oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing scheduled for April 3, 2017, at 1:30 p.m. is
VACATED and OFF CALENDAR.

:
Initials of Preparer
AB for PMC
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

5:17-cv-00316-SVW-DTB

Date

Title

March 30, 2017

Brittney Kevett v. Michael P. Graf, d/b/a Quiznos, et al.

employee of Defendants. Dkt. 13-2, p. 2. Plaintiff alleges she was a non-exempt employee required to
work off-the-clock, that she was not compensated for all hours worked, that Defendants deducted wages if
she forgot to clock in or clock out, that she was not permitted to take her full meal periods for shifts over
five hours long nor did she receive compensation for missed meal periods, and that she did not receive a
final paycheck for the full amount due to her after quitting her job at Quiznos. Dkt. 13-2, p. 3. Plaintiff’s
complaint includes claims under the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code
for (1) failure to pay minimum wage, (2) failure to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu therefore,
(3) failure to provide rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof, (4) failure to provide accurate wage
statements, (5) waiting time penalties, and (6) unfair business practices. Dkt. 13-2, p. 5-10.
On February 21, 2017, Graf filed a Notice of Removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside to the United States District Court of
the Central District of California. Dkt. 2. On March 6, 2017, Graf filed a Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. 8. On
March 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to Graf’s Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. 13. Graf did not file a
reply.
III.

LEGAL STANDARD

“‘Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,’ possessing ‘only that power authorized by
Constitution and statute.’” Gunn v. Minton, 133 S.Ct. 1059, 1064 (2013) (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian
Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)). “The burden of establishing jurisdiction falls on the
party invoking the removal statute . . . which is strictly construed against removal.” Sullivan v. First
Affiliated Sec., Inc., 813 F.2d 1368, 1371 (9th Cir. 1987). Further, “the court resolves all ambiguity in
favor of remand to state court.” Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal question jurisdiction extends to cases in which a well-pleaded
complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff's right to relief
“requires resolution of a substantial question of federal law in dispute between the parties.” Franchise Tax
Board of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 13, 27-28 (1983). If a plaintiff
may be entitled to relief for reasons that are “completely unrelated to the provisions and purposes” of the
federal law at issue, then the claim does not arise under federal law. Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating
Corp., 486 U.S. at 800, 808 (1988).

:
Initials of Preparer
AB for PMC
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

5:17-cv-00316-SVW-DTB

Title

Brittney Kevett v. Michael P. Graf, d/b/a Quiznos, et al.

IV.

Date

March 30, 2017

ANALYSIS

In Graf’s Notice of Removal, Graf argues that Plaintiff could have commenced her action under
the FLSA instead of under the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code. Dkt.
2, p. 2. He argues that federal laws preempt state laws, and thus the claim arises under federal law and
belongs in federal court. Dkt. 2, p. 2. In Graf’s Motion to Dismiss, Graf argues that Plaintiff failed to state
a claim under the FLSA, and that the federal court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s
remaining claims, thus this Court should grant his Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. 8, p. 3, 5.
Plaintiff responds that her complaint contains viable claims under California law, and that Graf
does not explain why FLSA should preempt California law for this case. Dkt. 13, p. 1. Plaintiff further
argues that this Court may decline jurisdiction over a case, but may not dismiss the case on that premise.
Dkt. 13, p. 6. Plaintiff then says that Graf failed to meet and confer pursuant to Local Rule 7-3, and thus
Graf’s Motion to Dismiss must be denied. Dkt. 13, p. 1. Lastly, Plaintiff requests leave to amend if Graf’s
Motion to Dismiss is granted. Dkt. 13, p. 6.
Generally, federal law preempts state law if Congress expressly so states, if Congress enacts
comprehensive laws that leave no room for additional state regulation, or if state law actually conflicts
with federal law. Pacific Merchant Shipping Ass'n v. Aubry, 918 F.2d 1409, 1415 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting
California Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Guerra, 479 U.S. 272, 280 (1987)). However, federal law
concerning the regulation of working conditions and wages does not necessarily preempt state law.
Rather, the standard most beneficial to employees controls the terms of the employment in California. 29
U.S.C.A. § 218; Aguilar v. Association for Retarded Citizens, 234 Cal. App. 3d 21, 34 (1991).
Here, by contrast, the FLSA explicitly permits greater employee protection under state law. In re
United Parcel Service Wage and Hour Cases, 190 Cal. App. 4th 1001, 1009 (2010); California
Correctional Peace Officers' Ass'n v. State, 189 Cal. App. 4th 849, 861 (finding the FLSA does not
preempt state regulation of wages, hours, and working conditions). In many respects, California law
provides broader protection of employee rights than does the FLSA, and because of that, California law
controls. In re United Parcel Service Wage and Hour Cases, 190 Cal. App. 4th at 1009. Therefore, this
Court finds that the FLSA does not preempt state law, that Plaintiff’s claims do not arise under federal law,
and thus Graf’s removal from state court to federal court was improper. Because this Court lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction over this action, a remand is necessary so that the state court may properly
resume its jurisdiction over the case.

:
Initials of Preparer
AB for PMC
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

5:17-cv-00316-SVW-DTB

Title

Brittney Kevett v. Michael P. Graf, d/b/a Quiznos, et al.

V.

Date

March 30, 2017

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that this case does not give rise to federal jurisdiction.
All of the Plaintiff’s claims are state law causes of action, and there is no diversity between the parties.
The Court REMANDS the case to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Riverside.

:
Initials of Preparer
AB for PMC
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 4 of 4