Wood

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 JANICE WOOD, ET AL., CASE NO. 19-cv-04287-YGR

9 Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING

10 vs. IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS

11 MARATHON REFINING LOGISTICS SERVICES Re: Dkt. Nos. 29, 35, 36

LLC,

12 Defendant. 13 14 This is the second round of briefing on the complaint filed by plaintiffs Janice Wood, 15 Anthony Alfaro, and Aaron Dietrich against defendant Marathon Refining Logistics Services 16 LLC. 17 In its prior order, this Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend on 18 the ground that plaintiffs’ claims were preempted by section 301 of the Labor Management 19 Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. section 185(a). Specifically, the Court held that preemption 20 applied based on the second prong of the preemption test set forth in Burnside v. Kiewit Pac. 21 Corp., 491 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2007), that is, because plaintiffs’ claims, as pleaded, appeared to be 22 “substantially dependent” on the terms of a collectively bargained agreement (“CBA”) and…