CUENNTITREADL S DTIASTTERSIC DTI SOTFR CICATL ICFOOURRNTIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. 2:20-cv-02163-RGK-AFM Date March 25, 2020 Title JEFFREY MCCANN v. CROWN BUILDING MAINTENANCE CO, etc

Present: The R. GARY KLAUSNER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Honorable Sharon L. Williams Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order Remanding Action to State Court On December 9, 2019, Jeffrey McCann (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Crown Building Maintenance Co. dba Able Building Maintenance Co. (“Defendant”) alleging common law and statutory claims based on violations of wage hour laws, and laws prohibiting discrimination and retaliation. On March 5, 2020, Defendant removed the action to this Court alleging jurisdiction on the grounds of both diversity of citizenship and federal question. Upon review of Defendant’s Notice of Removal, the Court hereby remands the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Removal jurisdiction is governed by statute. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, et seq. The Ninth Circuit has held unequivocally that the removal statute is construed strictly against removal. Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988). The strong presumption against removal jurisdiction means that “the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving the case is properly in federal court.”). Defendant argues that because Plaintiff is a union member and subject to a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”), Plaintiff’s state law claims are preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA. However, upon review of the Complaint and Defendant’s Notice of Removal, there are no facts or allegations indicating that Plaintiff’s claims involve rights that are either (1) granted solely based on the CBA, or (2) substantially dependent on a CBA. Rather, the stated claims involve rights conferred by California law that are independent of any CBA, and there is no adequate showing that such rights are substantially dependent on a CBA such that resolution of the claims require interpretation of the CBA.

CUENNTITREADL S DTIASTTERSIC DTI SOTFR CICATL ICFOOURRNTIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. 2:20-cv-02163-RGK-AFM Date March 25, 2020 Title JEFFREY MCCANN v. CROWN BUILDING MAINTENANCE CO, etc In light of the foregoing, the action is hereby remanded to state court for all further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

: Initials of Preparer