Jones v. Lehigh Southwest Cement Company, Inc.

Filing 17

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion to Remand 11 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on May 22, 2012. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM RAY JONES, SR.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
LEHIGH SOUTHWEST CEMENT
COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-00633 - AWI - JLT
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF‟S MOTION TO
REMAND
(Doc. 11)

Plaintiff William Jones, Sr. (“Plaintiff”) seeks an order remanding this action to Kern County

18
19

Superior Court. (Doc. 11). Defendant Lehigh Southwest Cement Company (“Defendant”) opposes

20

the motion, asserting the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action. (Doc. 14). For the

21

reasons set forth below, Plaintiff‟s motion to remand is DENIED.

22

I.

23

Procedural History
On February 23, 2012, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant in Kern County Superior

24

Court, in Case No. S-1500-CV-275957. (Doc. 1, Exh. A). Defendant filed a Notice of Removal on

25

April 20, 2012, asserting the Court has jurisdiction over the matter because the Complaint raises a

26

claim for a breach of a collective bargaining agreement. (Doc. 1 at 2) (citing Young v. Anthony’s Fish

27

Grottos, Inc., 830 F.2d 993, 997 (9th Cir. 1987). In addition, Defendant notes the complaint includes

28

causes of action for racial discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Id.
1

1

II.

Jurisdiction

2

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant has the right to remove a matter to federal court

3

where the district court would have original jurisdiction. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 286,

4

392 (1987). Specifically,
Except otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a
State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction,
may be removed by the defendant or defendants, to the district court of the United
States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.

5
6
7
8

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). District courts have “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the

9

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Id. at § 1331.
A party seeking removal must file a notice of removal of a civil action within thirty days of

10
11

receipt of a copy of the initial pleading. Id. at § 1446(b). Removal statutes are to be strictly construed,

12

and any doubts are to be resolved in favor of state court jurisdiction and remand. See Gaus v. Miles,

13

980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The party seeking removal bears the burden of proving its

14

propriety. Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996); Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443

15

F.3d 676, 683-85 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Calif. ex. rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 2274 F.3d 831, 838

16

(“the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction falls to the party invoking the statute”). The Court may

17

remand an action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for defect in the removal

18

procedure. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

19

III.

20

Discussion and Analysis
As the party seeking removal, Defendant “bears the burden of actually proving the facts to

21

support jurisdiction, including the jurisdictional amount.” Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins., 102 F.3d

22

398, 403 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Gaus, 980 F.2d at 677-67). The determination of federal question

23

jurisdiction “is governed by the „well-pleaded complaint rule,‟ which provides that federal jurisdiction

24

exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff‟s properly pleaded complaint.”

25

Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392. Therefore, the complaint must establish “either that [1] federal law

26

creates the cause of action or that [2] the plaintiff‟s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of

27

a substantial question of federal law.” Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas

28

Storage Leasehold & Easement, 524 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).
2

Here, Plaintiff‟s complaint includes a cause of action for violation of a collective bargaining

1
2

agreement. (Doc. 1, Exh. A at 1-3). The Ninth Circuit has explained, “A suit for breach of a

3

collective bargaining agreement is governed exclusively by federal law. . .” Young, 803 F.2d at 997.

4

Notably, Plaintiff does not dispute the Court‟s jurisdiction over this claim. (See Doc. 11 at 2).

5

Because this cause of action is created by federal law, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over

6

Plaintiff‟s complaint. See Williston Basin, 524 F.3d at 1100.

7

IV.

Based upon the foregoing, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff‟s complaint.

8
9

Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Plaintiff‟s motion to remand is DENIED.

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15

Dated:

May 22, 2012

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

9j7khijed

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3