In re E-3 Systems Litigation

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JOSE FRANCO, Case No. 19-cv-01453-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO REMAND

9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 8 10 E-3 SYSTEMS, 11 Defendant.

12 JOSE FRANCO, Case No. 19-cv-02854-HSG 13 Plaintiff, Re: Dkt. No. 9

14 v.

15 E-3 SYSTEMS, 16 Defendant.

17 18 Plaintiff Jose Franco filed these putative class and representative actions in state court. 19 Case No. 19-cv-1453-HSG, Dkt. No. 1, Ex. A (“Mot.”); Case No. 19-cv-2854-HSG, Dkt. No. 1, 20 Ex. A.1 Defendant removed the actions to federal court based on federal preemption under § 301 21 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1974 (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185. Dkt. No. 1; Case 22 No. 19-cv-2854-HSG, Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff now seeks to remand the actions back to state court. 23 After carefully considering the parties’ arguments, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. 24 I. LEGAL STANDARD 25 “Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of…