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-