Ohlson v. Slawson et al

Filing 8

ORDER - Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT plaintiff Thomas E. Ohlson's lawsuit is REMANDED to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on 03/28/12. (bjs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
THOMAS E. OHLSON,

Case No. 12-CV-0658 (PJS/JJG)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

BRADLEY SLAWSON, SR. and BRADLEY
SLAWSON, JR.,
Defendants.
Richard T. Wylie, ATTORNEY AT LAW, for plaintiff.
Katrina E. Joseph and Martin J. Costello, HUGHES & COSTELLO, for defendants.
Plaintiff Thomas E. Ohlson (who appears to be a resident of Minnesota) sued defendants
Bradley Slawson, Sr. and Bradley Slawson, Jr. (who appear to be residents of Minnesota) for
defamation in Minnesota state court. It appeared to the Court that the Slawsons impermissibly
removed this lawsuit to federal court on the grounds that they have a federal defense — namely,
that their speech was protected by § 101(a)(2) of the Labor Management Reporting Disclosure
Act (“LMRDA”), 29 U.S.C. § 411(a)(2). Accordingly, the Court ordered the Slawsons to show
cause why the lawsuit should not be remanded to state court for lack of jurisdiction. See Order
Mar. 19, 2012 [Docket No. 6].
In their response, the Slawsons admit that the existence of a federal defense to a state-law
claim does not support removal to federal court. See Def. Mem. to Show-Cause Order at 3
[Docket No. 7]. The Slawsons maintain, however, that they are not merely raising a federal
defense; instead, they argue, Ohlson’s complaint “represents an attempt to limit the breath [sic],

scope, and extent of federally-protected election speech by union members, under the guise of a
tort action for defamation.” Id. at 4.
Even if this is true, though, the Slawsons would merely have a federal defense to
Ohlson’s defamation claim. Such a defense does not provide a basis for removal to federal court.
See Luecke v. Schnucks Markets, Inc., 85 F.3d 356, 358 (8th Cir. 1996) (explaining that to invoke
jurisdiction under § 1331,“the federal question generally must appear on the face of the
complaint”); Gore v. Trans World Airlines, 210 F.3d 944, 948 (8th Cir. 2000) (“A defendant is
not permitted to inject a federal question into an otherwise state-law claim and thereby transform
the action into one arising under federal law.”); see also Gerow v. Kleinerman, 01-138, 2002 WL
1625417, at *4 (D.N.J. July 2, 2002) (“Having reviewed the relevant case law . . . the Court finds
that at best the LMRDA presents a preemptive federal defense to state law causes of action,
which is not sufficient to sustain removal.”).
The Court recognizes that there is a narrow exception to the general rule described above
when the state-law claim is completely preempted by federal law. See Luecke, 85 F.3d at 358
(where there is complete preemption, “any claim purportedly based on that pre-empted state law
is considered, from its inception, a federal claim, and therefore arises under federal law” (internal
quotations omitted)). Without expressly citing complete preemption, the Slawsons nevertheless
appear to argue that Ohlson’s complaint is really a federal claim disguised as a state-law claim.
But the Slawsons have failed to cite — and the Court has not found — any support for the
proposition that the LMRDA completely preempts state law. See, e.g., Hahn v. Rauch, 602 F.
Supp. 2d 895, 910 (N.D. Ohio 2008) (“The Supreme Court has never held that the LMRDA
completely preempts state law.”); Brock v. Union Local No. 830, 07-4258, 2008 WL 2945387, at
-2-

*4 n.8 (E.D. Pa. July 30, 2008) (“Unlike ‘complete preemption’ under the LMRA . . . preemption
under the LMRDA does not provide an independent basis for federal court jurisdiction.”); Box
Tree South, Ltd. v. Bitterman, 873 F. Supp. 833, 840 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (“While the Supreme
Court has found that federal labor law provides limited preemption of state law libel claims
arising in labor disputes, that preemption is not complete preemption . . . .”).
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED THAT plaintiff Thomas E. Ohlson’s lawsuit is REMANDED to state
court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Dated: March 28 , 2012

s/Patrick J. Schiltz
Patrick J. Schiltz
United States District Judge

-3-