Mead

Pacific Maritime Ass'n v. Mead

Good Law
246 F. Supp. 2d 1087·2003 WL 671716·2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2757
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaFebruary 24, 2003C 02-5614 VRWCalifornia2,934 words

Opinion

Opinion

Walker, J.

ORDER

Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) filed a Petition of Employer for Injunction Prohibiting Violence or Threats of Violence against Employee against Richard Mead (Mead) in San Francisco superior court on November 6, 2002. See Not of Rem (Doc # 1), Exh A. The petition alleges that Mead physically attacked Dana Walton (Walton), a “joint dispatcher” employed at a dispatch hall partly operated by PMA. Id. at 1-2. The extent to which Walton is an employee of PMA and what sources the court would need to consult to make that determination are the primary issues in dispute.

A temporary restraining order issued against Mead on November 6, 2002. See Woodhouse Decl (Doc # 5), ¶ 3. And a hearing was set for November 27, 2002. See Walton Decl (Doc # 6), Exh 2. On November 26, 2002, Mead timely removed the matter to this court, alleging that PMA’s state court petition is completely preempted by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) and so raises a federal question. See 29 USC § 185 .

PMA now moves to remand. Doc # 3. For the reasons detailed below, PMA’s motion to remand (Doc # 3) is GRANTED. Because the court finds this matter suitable for determination without oral…

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.