Danny Armenta v. Stater Bros. Markets

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DANNY ARMENTA, individually and Case No. 5:20-cv-02364-MCS-KK 11 on behalf of all others similarly situated, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 12

REMAND [10]

13 Plaintiffs,

14 v. 15 STATER BROS. MARKETS, a 16 California Corporation; and DOES 1- 17 50, inclusive,

18 Defendants. 19 20 Plaintiff Danny Armenta moves to remand this matter, arguing that his claims are 21 not preempted by section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”) and 22 that the Court otherwise lacks jurisdiction. Mot. to Remand (“Motion”), ECF No. 10. 23 The Court held oral arguments and took the Motion under submission. For the following 24 reasons, the Court exercises jurisdiction over all claims and denies the Motion. 25 I. BACKGROUND 26 Armenta worked in Defendant’s meat department from roughly May 2004 to 27 September 2019. Compl. ¶ 17, ECF No. 1-1. Armenta’s employment was subject to a 28 collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) between the United Food & Commercial 1 Workers International Union and Defendant. See CBA,…