Garcia
Garcia v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JOSE GARCIA, Case No. 24-cv-04150-VC
Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
v. MOTION TO DISMISS AND
REMANDING REMAINING CLAIMS
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY,
Re: Dkt. No. 18 Defendant.
Garcia filed a complaint in state court alleging various California wage and hour law violations against PG&E. PG&E removed to federal court arguing that Garcia’s claims are preempted by the LMRA. See Curtis v. Irwin Industries, Inc., 913 F.3d 1146, 1152 (9th Cir. 2019). PG&E now moves to dismiss the allegedly preempted claims because Garcia neither exhausted the CBA’s required grievance and arbitration process before bringing suit nor alleged that his union breached its duty of fair representation in failing to advance his claims. See Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 985–86 (9th Cir. 2007). Garcia does not dispute that any preempted claims should be dismissed, but he asks that any non-preempted claims be remanded to state court. The motion to dismiss is granted in part, and the remaining claims are remanded. This ruling assumes the reader’s familiarity with the facts,…