The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Larry Alan Burns United States District Judge
On June 29, 2007, Plaintiff Tormey filed this putative class action in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. Defendants then on August 10, 2007 removed the action to this Court, representing that the provisions of the Removal Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1446, were met. Defendants contended this Court had federal question jurisdiction because some of Defendants claims were completely preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a) ("Section 301"). Plaintiffs also asked the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over other related state claims.
Because the Court's jurisdiction was not clear, the Court on August 15, 2007 sua sponte issued an order to show cause requiring Plaintiffs to show cause why this action should not be remanded. On August 22, 2007, Plaintiffs responded and, on August 29, Defendant replied to Plaintiffs' response. Defendants' response identifies federal question jurisdiction, and supplemental jurisdiction, as the sole bases for this Court's exercise of jurisdiction over this action.
The Court is under an independent obligation to examine whether removal jurisdiction exists. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). "The removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction falls to the party invoking the statute." California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), the Court must remand the case to state court if at any time before final judgment it appears the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff, a pharmacist, was employed by Defendant Vons Companies, during which time Defendants represent his employment was governed by a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA"). He seeks unpaid rest and meal period compensation, penalties, disgorgement, restitution, and injunctive relief on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. He relies on California Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512; California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200--17208; California Code of Regulations, Title 8, § 11040, and Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Order No. 4-2001.
Defendants contend Plaintiff's unpaid meal period compensation claim is completely preempted by Section 301. They concede, however, that the rest period claims are not, and ask the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims.
B. Jurisdictional Analysis
Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, federal jurisdiction typically exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint. Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). "A federal law defense to a state-law claim does not confer jurisdiction on a federal court, even if the defense is that of federal preemption and is anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint. Id. (citation omitted). "This rule makes a plaintiff the 'master of his complaint': He may generally avoid federal jurisdiction by pleading solely state-law claims." Id. (citation omitted).
A corollary to the well-pleaded complaint rule, however, is the "complete preemption doctrine," which may "convert[ ] an ordinary state common-law complaint into one stating a federal claim for purposes of the well-pleaded complaint rule." Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987) (citation omitted). The Supreme Court has explained that "if the resolution of a state-law claim depends upon the meaning of a collective-bargaining agreement, the application of state law . . . is pre-empted and federal labor-law principles . . . must be employed to resolve the dispute." Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399, 405--06 (1988) (footnotes and citations omitted). However, ""not every dispute tangentially involving a provision of a collective-bargaining agreement, is pre-empted by § 301." Id. at 413 n.12 (citation and alterations omitted). Furthermore, a party cannot trigger section 301 preemption merely by asserting the waiver of a state-law claim in a collective bargaining agreement. Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 398.
Section 301 "is not designed to trump substantive and mandatory state law regulation of the employee-employer relationship. . . ." Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1076 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Thus, a claim brought on the basis of a mandatory state law is not preempted, even if an identical claim could be brought under Section 301. Id. (citing Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107, 123 (1994)). Section 301 "cannot be read broadly to pre-empt nonnegotiable rights conferred on individual employees as a matter of state law." Id. If the law were otherwise, employers could immunize themselves from suit under state labor laws of general applicability by including unlawful terms in collective bargaining agreements. Balcorta v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 208 F.3d 1102, 1111 (9th Cir. 2000).
The Ninth Circuit has examined meal period requirements under California state law and has determined them to be non-negotiable and therefore not preempted by Section 301. Valles, 410 F.3d at 1081--82. While a state might create a non-negotiable remedy that turned on the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement, California's meal ...