Lessard et al v. Trinity Protection Services, Inc.
Filing
54
ORDER REMANDING CASE., ***Civil Case Terminated.. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 9/9/11. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/12/2011)
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
OAKLAND DIVISION
5
6 MICHAEL P. LESSARD,
Plaintiff,
7
8
vs.
Case No: C 10-5891 SBA
ORDER REMANDING ACTION
Dkt. 14, 32
9 TRINITY PROTECTION SERVICES, INC.,
a Maryland Corporation, and DOES 1 through
10 50, inclusive,
Defendants.
11
12
13
Plaintiff filed the instant wage and hour class action in Alameda County Superior
14
Court alleging, inter alia, that Defendant Trinity Protection Services, Inc., violated various
15
provisions of the California Labor Code. Defendant removed the action to this Court on the
16
grounds that Plaintiff’s state law causes of action are completely preempted by section 301
17
of the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185; see Allis-Chalmers
18
Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 209-10 (1985); Stikes v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 914 F.2d
19
1265, 1268 (9th Cir. 1990). The parties are now before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to
20
Remand and Request for Attorneys’ Fees. Dkt. 14. Having read and considered the papers
21
filed in connection with this matter and being fully informed, the Court hereby GRANTS
22
Plaintiff’s motion to remand and DENIES his request for attorneys’ fees and costs.1
23
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims are not preempted by the LMRA. The rights
24
which Plaintiff seeks to vindicate emanate from California law, and are independent from
25
the collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”). See Burnside v. Kiewit Pac. Corp., 491 F.3d
26
1053, 1061 (9th Cir. 2007). Nor do any of such claims require interpretation of the CBA.
27
1
28
In light of the Court’s decision to remand the action to state court, Defendant’s
motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), Dkt. 32, is DENIED as moot.
1
See Allis-Chalmers, 471 U.S. at 209-10. Although the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s
2
claims are not completely preempted and that removal jurisdiction is absent, an award of
3
fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) is not warranted, as Defendant had an objectively
4
reasonable basis for removal. See Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141
5
(2005); Moore v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc., 981 F.2d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 1992).
6
Accordingly,
7
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s motion to remand is GRANTED and
8
his request for an award of fees and costs is DENIED. The instant action is REMANDED
9
forthwith to the Alameda County Superior Court. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c),
10
the Clerk of this Court shall mail a certified copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Superior
11
Court. The Clerk shall close the file and terminate all pending matters.
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September9, 2011
_______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?