Biggers v. Stater Bros. Markets

          PRESENT: THE HONORABLE S. JAMES OTERO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

          CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

         PROCEEDINGS (in chambers): ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND [Docket No. 24] AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS [Docket No. 25]

         This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Katrina Biggers' Motion to Remand filed on September 18, 2019 (“Motion to Remand”) and Defendant Stater Bros. Markets' (“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss filed on September 24, 2019 (“Motion to Dismiss”). Defendant opposed the Motion to Remand on October 7, 2019 (“Remand Opposition”), to which Plaintiff replied ("Remand Reply") on October 11, 2019. Plaintiff opposed the Motion to Dismiss on October 4, 2019, to which Defendant replied on October 11, 2019. The Court found this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument and vacated the hearings set for October 28, 2019. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as moot.

         I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         A. Procedural Background

         On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed a putative wage and hour class action in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Bernardino, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees against Defendant, a California corporation, and Does 1-50, inclusive. (ECF No. 1-1.) On June 13, 2019, Defendant removed the case to this Court on the grounds that Plaintiff's claims were preempted by Section 301 of the federal Labor Management Relations Act (“Section 301” or “LMRA”), which gives federal courts the exclusive jurisdiction to hear suits for violations of contracts between employers and labor organizations pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). (ECF No. 1.) On July 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF No. 12.)

         On July 22, 2019, Defendant moved to dismiss and/or strike the FAC based on LMRA preemption and because the FAC failed to state a claim for relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6). (See generally ECF No. 15.) On August 27, 2019, the Court granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend, finding that Plaintiff's claims were not preempted by the LMRA, and they were not sufficiently specific to state a claim for relief under Rule 12(b)(6). (See ECF No. 21.) The Court gave Plaintiff fourteen days to file an amended complaint. (Id. at 7.)

         On September 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”).^[1] (ECF No. 23.) In her Motion to Remand, Plaintiff seeks to remand the action to the San Bernardino Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because her causes of action are not preempted by the LMRA and there is no other basis for federal jurisdiction. (Mot. Remand 7, ECF No. 24.)

         On September 18, 2019, Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 24.)

         B. Factual Background

         The SAC alleges the following. Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant since on or about May 7, 2007. (SAC ¶ 7, ECF No. 23.) Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, she has been a non-exempt, hourly employee. (Id.) Defendant is a California corporation that maintains operations in California, including stores in San Bernardino, California. (Id. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff seeks to represent the following classes:

(1) All current and former non-exempt employees of Defendant in the State of California who were paid overtime wages at any time between September 7, 2018, through the present (the “OT Wage Statement Class”); and

(2) All current and former non-exempt employees of Defendant in the State of California who were paid night premium wages at any time between September 7, 2018, through the present (the “Night Premium Wage Statement Class”).

(Id. ¶ 16.)

         Plaintiff alleges that she, the OT Wage Class, and the Night Premium Wage Statement Class were paid on an hourly basis, and that the wage statements provided to them should have reflected all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate, as well as the total hours they worked. (Id. ¶ 29.) However, the wage statements they received failed to accurately identify such information. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges two specific instances in or around March 2019 where the wage statements she received were inaccurate: the first as to the rate of pay she received, and the second as to the total hours she worked. (Id.)

         Plaintiff also alleges that on or about April 23, 2019, she sent written notice to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) of Defendant's alleged violations of California Labor Code § 226(a), pursuant to California Labor Code § 2698, et seq., and that as of the date she filed the SAC, the LWDA had not responded. (Id. ¶ 34.) As such, pursuant to California Labor Code § 2699(a), Plaintiff seeks recovery of “any and all applicable civil penalties” for Defendant's alleged violations of California Labor Code § 226(a) for the relevant time period, on behalf of herself and the putative class members. (Id. ¶ 35.)

         Based on these allegations, Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action:

(1) Violation of California Labor Code § 226(a) (the “First Cause of ...