Garcia

Garcia v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaSeptember 17, 20243:24-cv-04150California810 words

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,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.